Dear Biblical Literalists

[jgordon1111]

And who said Christianity doesn't fit into what I proposed, matter of fact it would explain quiet alot

[tzor]

I won't even pretend to understand the filioque debate.

Well, a lot of it is politics. A lot of it is nitpicking (although no one ever suggested that at the time).

The Creed proclaimed that the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father. Remember that due to the fact all of the common Ecumenical Councils happened in the east, since they were basically secured through the last remaining structure of the old Roman Empire, located in Constantinople. Thus the writings were in Greek.

Now even the Greeks continued to expand on this issue, suggesting that the spirit proceeded though or by the way of the Son. It's not like the Spirit comes from the Father, and avoids the Son, but that it goes from the Father, through the Son and to the Church.

And now, let's go as West as West gets those days ... To Toledo. No Greek here, they were using the translated version in Latin. Greek nuances were gone. Here is a good of an explanation as any ... SOURCE

But, if the Western Church agrees with the East that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then what does it mean by "Filioque" –that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son"? Very simply, and keeping in mind the West’s isolation from the original Greek-language intention of the Constantinopolitan Creed, what the West means to express is a truth that is equally valid, but distinct and parallel to, the original Greek-language intention. For, when the West speaks of the Spirit "proceeding" from the Father and the Son, it is referring to something all-together different than "procession" as from a single source (aitia). It is not advocating two sources or principals for the Spirit, or some kind of "double spiration," as is all-too-commonly (wrongly) assumed by many Eastern Orthodox. Rather, it is using the term "proceeds" in an all-together different sense. And the best way to illustrate the two different senses or uses of the term "proceeds" (Greek vs. Latin) is though the following analogy:

If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son. In this sense, one can say that the game of catch "proceeds" from this human father (an "aition"); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed’s use of the term "proceeds" ("ekporeusis"). However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch "proceeds" from both the father and his son. And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist. For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch. And, it is in this sense (one might say a "collective" sense) that the West uses the term "proceeds" ("procedit") in the Filioque. Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son’s presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father’s role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch, so the Filioque does not deny the Father’s singular role as the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit; but merely acknowledges the Son’s necessary Presence (i.e., participation) for the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father to Someone else –namely, to the eternal Son. Father and Son are thus collectively identified as accounting for the Spirit’s procession. This is all that the Filioque was ever intended to address; and it was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians. These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth –that is, the Son’s eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession –an issue which was never challenged or comprehensively addressed in the Byzantine experience, aside from the fact that there does exist throughout the writings of the Eastern fathers the profession that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "through [or ‘by way of’] the Son." –an expression equivalent to the Filioque.

At the time of the schism, ROME had not even given an official position on the decision of Toledo, a local council, in every way. Politics took over.

[PLAYER57832]

Anyone who can describe the essence - as in the stuff God is made of - needs to learn a lesson or twelve about humility.

Yeah Moses, Paul, et al were perhaps not known for humility.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Since the only fruitful part of this whole thread has been the discussion with tzor; let us continue this inter-faith dialogue.

I, as a distinctly Protestant believer and you, as a distinctly Catholic believer come from two very different perspectives.
It is easy to see how the line of Catholicism can make claim to the true church as established by the Apostles. It is easy to see how I should bend in humility to the teachers of the faith. It is easy to see how incorrect interpretation of the Bible can get someone in trouble. I have difficulty with sola scriptura in an absolute sense; although I agree that the Scripture should be the foundation of Christianity.

The thing that gives me the most difficulty with Catholicism is the Mariology. The Catholic Church has declared her comediatrix and coredemptrix. They teach that she was bodily assumed into heaven and remained a virgin for life. Then I think that I'm on LSD, because in a million different interpretations of the Bible, I would never have guessed any of this stuff.

Vincent of Lerins in the Commonitorium defined Catholic faith as that which has been held "everywhere, always, and by everyone". This is the best definition for true Christianity and the worship of Mary, even the worship of images of Mary totally goes against this definition.

So Joseph never got to hit that and remained married to her the whole time? Jesus, rename the poor guy to Job.

-TG

[tzor]

Yeah Moses, Paul, et al were perhaps not known for humility.

I can't speak for Moses, but a person who keeps telling God, "But I stutter ..." seems to have some sense of humility.

As for Paul, he started off with a "knocked off his high horse" event. He freely admitted of his faults and even boasted about them.

[PLAYER57832]

The thing that gives me the most difficulty with Catholicism is the Mariology. The Catholic Church has declared her comediatrix and coredemptrix. They teach that she was bodily assumed into heaven and remained a virgin for life. Then I think that I'm on LSD, because in a million different interpretations of the Bible, I would never have guessed any of this stuff.

The first thing you need to realize is that Latin can sometimes not be intuitive. After the fact it seems so blatantly obvious. But we tend to throw complex terms into the equation to mess things up.

Nothing is more annoying than the latin prefix "co" ... it means with. We assume equality, but the person who works with the pilot (the copilot) is not the equal to the pilot. (And they don't get near the same pay.)

Co-Mediatrix is one of those very annoying terms. The actual title is "Mediatrix" which again, doesn't help much, because it actually does come back to the "Co." Mary works "with" or "through" her son. SIOURCE

Mary’s title of mediatrix arises from her cooperation in the Incarnation and in the Redemption of mankind. Through her "yes" (Lk 1:38), she became the Theotokos (God-bearer), and, as the "New Eve," she is "the Mother of all living."

Irenaeus (A.D. 120–200) wrote, "As by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved, a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience" (Against Heresies, 3, 22, 19). Eve made the Fall possible, but Adam effected it; Mary made our Redemption possible (by consenting to bring the Savior into the world), but Jesus effected it.

God permitted the Redemption of mankind to depend on the free-will decision of a human being. Whether or not we would have a mediator was dependent on Mary’s "yes." Had there been no "yes" from Mary, there would have been no mediator. Thus the graces that come through Jesus may be said to come to us, in a secondary way, via Mary—not as the origin of the graces, but as a conduit. The Catholic Church always has taught that Jesus Christ alone redeemed mankind (neither Mary nor any other creature had the power to do so), and ultimately only through him are salvation and grace obtained.

Even we are mediators, in a lesser sense. The word mediator means someone who is a go-between. In 1 Timothy 2:5, which refers to Jesus as the "one mediator," the Greek word for "one" is heis, which means "first" or "primary" and does not denote something exclusive. In fact, we are all mediators when we pray for one another. As members of the Mystical Body of Christ, we all share in Christ’s role as mediator, but our efforts at being go-betweens "work" only because of what he has done.

Our mediating in no way diminishes the role of Christ as mediator; in fact, it glorifies the Father, because it is through Jesus that we can approach with confidence the throne of grace (Heb 4:14-16). How much more does Jesus give his mother Mary the privilege to be a participant in the distribution of grace!

It is interesting to note that Co-Redemptrix is not an official teaching. But let us consider the hierarchical nature of "Co." The term flows from the same argument as the former; Mary's acceptance of being the one to give birth to the redeemer gives her an subsidiary participation in that act of redemption.

I must have missed this earlier.

I was recently taught that the reason for Mary's importance in the Roman Catholic church is that she is the inheritor of the Hebrew's Queen role, that as Jesus' mother, she would be the rightful queen, (even after marriage, I am told the mother held the queen position) and that she sat beside the queen, receiving petitions and deciding who would get to see the king. Your explanation seems to differ somewhat. Are they different ideas or do they fit together?

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah Moses, Paul, et al were perhaps not known for humility.

I can't speak for Moses, but a person who keeps telling God, "But I stutter ..." seems to have some sense of humility.

As for Paul, he started off with a "knocked off his high horse" event. He freely admitted of his faults and even boasted about them.

Yeah, I was being obnoxious. sorry.

[tzor]

I was recently taught that the reason for Mary's importance in the Roman Catholic church is that she is the inheritor of the Hebrew's Queen role, that as Jesus' mother, she would be the rightful queen, (even after marriage, I am told the mother held the queen position) and that she sat beside the queen, receiving petitions and deciding who would get to see the king. Your explanation seems to differ somewhat. Are they different ideas or do they fit together?

Catholic Teaching 101. Everything has multiple reasons, they all point to the same thing. So this is one important item. Another is John's Gospel and the Wedding Feast of Canaan. One can even argue that the appearance in the Gospel is an indication of the above, but you don't need to need to see the implication of the Queen Mother to see how her intercession was critical towards Jesus' response. Mary has had a unique position from the start of the Church, even though all of the reasons were not explicitly written out. Luke places her in the upper room after the ascension.

When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

[PLAYER57832]

together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

[/quote]
Thank you, but it seems one question leads to another. What have you been taught is the explanation for "Jesus brothers", if he had none?

[tzor]

Thank you, but it seems one question leads to another. What have you been taught is the explanation for "Jesus brothers", if he had none?

It's a good question. I wish I had a good answer.

I've heard two general arguments. The oldest one is the notion that Joseph was a widower when he was betrothed to Mary. This also explains his untimely death (or completely lack of mention by the time Jesus' mission years are recorded in the Gospels).

The other argument is that the word which is translated as "brothers" does not mean specifically those who share one or two parents but could also apply to cousins. I've seen a lot of arguments that suggest that the "brothers' recorded in the bible have different parents than Jesus. SOURCE from Catholic Answers

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

[PLAYER57832]

The brother=cousin is the explanation Hahn uses, but I have heard others, including (as a Protestant) that he did have actual brothers. Thank you.

[Phatscotty]

I just don't understand why you choose to use phrase right out of the creationist play book.

For example: "banning good scientists".... There is no mechanism for banning good scientists. It's not like we have a moderated forum where the ban-hammer can be swung. It's a totally nonsensical statement, filled into a totally ludicrous of a grand conspiracy against people who are (most likely) admitted creationists.

That's what my problem with you is. If you don't have the bulls to even rely on your faith, then you re relying on nothing.

You can put Groucho glasses on your creationism, but that's cowardly. If you are going to hide behind Jesus, don't also deny Him.

Well, I'm not a creationist, so all that makes sense only if I'm something I'm not.

Banning good science... I can restate even though I'm pretty sure I used the word 'exiled'. For all practical purposes, the science, the scientist, and the solid evidence produced by the scientist at the heart of this specific matter, was ignored, mocked, rejected, and the geologist's reputation was destroyed. So, sure, technically it wasn't an official ban. But yes there is in fact a mechanism, it's called 'the scientific method' where results can be challenged and tested. But that can't happen when solid results of solid science are ignored and rejected simply because 'it sounds too Biblical' That can't happen when scientists and people who rely on science react in the same exact way they criticize religious people for doing.

[Bernie Sanders]

I just don't understand why you choose to use phrase right out of the creationist play book.

For example: "banning good scientists".... There is no mechanism for banning good scientists. It's not like we have a moderated forum where the ban-hammer can be swung. It's a totally nonsensical statement, filled into a totally ludicrous of a grand conspiracy against people who are (most likely) admitted creationists.

That's what my problem with you is. If you don't have the bulls to even rely on your faith, then you re relying on nothing.

You can put Groucho glasses on your creationism, but that's cowardly. If you are going to hide behind Jesus, don't also deny Him.

Well, I'm not a creationist, so all that makes sense only if I'm something I'm not.

Banning good science... I can restate even though I'm pretty sure I used the word 'exiled'. For all practical purposes, the science, the scientist, and the solid evidence produced by the scientist at the heart of this specific matter, was ignored, mocked, rejected, and the geologist's reputation was destroyed. So, sure, technically it wasn't an official ban. But yes there is in fact a mechanism, it's called 'the scientific method' where results can be challenged and tested. But that can't happen when solid results of solid science are ignored and rejected simply because 'it sounds too Biblical' That can't happen when scientists and people who rely on science react in the same exact way they criticize religious people for doing.

Phatts, can we discuss that Comet and Flood Thing again?

[PLAYER57832]

Banning good science... I can restate even though I'm pretty sure I used the word 'exiled'. For all practical purposes, the science, the scientist, and the solid evidence produced by the scientist at the heart of this specific matter, was ignored, mocked, rejected, and the geologist's reputation was destroyed. So, sure, technically it wasn't an official ban. But yes there is in fact a mechanism, it's called 'the scientific method' where results can be challenged and tested. But that can't happen when solid results of solid science are ignored and rejected simply because 'it sounds too Biblical' That can't happen when scientists and people who rely on science react in the same exact way they criticize religious people for doing.

Actually, Phattscotty, you have it pretty much backwards. EVERYTHING is challenged in science, run through the mill, criticized, debunked as much as possible. Its only if it survives those challenges that it becomes something solid that is taught in grade schools. Even then, there are folks who constantly try to test the most proven theories... and sure, some who want to parade out some previously declaimed ideas. Once in a while old ideas come around, but the challenge is not the "enemy" as you seem to imply. Rather the challenge is how the science is proven (to the extent it can be)

But its not a conspiracy against individuals, as long as the science is good. In fact, even the greatest of scientists has had some idea or other challenged, even while others were accepted.

its sort of like the old argument for would a defense lawyer defend a henious criminal. As much as anything, if they do not get a reasonable defense, they cannot possibly be convicted. Here, any idea that does not face significant challenge is just not an idea worth consideration and challenge. Ideas with the most challenge are those folks found most profound/interesting/altering.

[Symmetry]

The brother=cousin is the explanation Hahn uses, but I have heard others, including (as a Protestant) that he did have actual brothers. Thank you.

Sure, mediaeval Christianity saw Joseph as a foolish figure, but it was much more integrated into common belief than the post-reformation Protestant and Catholic faiths. A sense of humour was not included in the 95 theses.