|
Post by valporun on Jan 10, 2007 14:36:14 GMT -5
valporun wrote: Who is we? I think I made it clear that the biblical account of the virgin birth and Jesus' miracles were not an opinion, especially my own. They are essential beliefs of any genuine Christian. Are you telling me as a theology major from Valparaiso University, that you don't believe either of the following to be true: 1. Virgin birth. 2. Miracles of Jesus I believe the virgin birth and the miracles are true, I just do not like being told that I should believe in a lieral conservative word-for-word form, as you expect me to do. I do question how some of these things happen because I know the Bible wasn't written in stone, unlike the Ten Commandments.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Jan 10, 2007 14:39:05 GMT -5
In terms of "we", I'm considering all the others who frequent this topic and either don't see eye-to-eye with you or don't agree with your form of proselytizing to the masses as you feel you must do constantly. You can read up and down this thread the names of many who have found contradiction in what you've said or don't see where you're coming from.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 15:12:12 GMT -5
valporun wrote: Who is we? I think I made it clear that the biblical account of the virgin birth and Jesus' miracles were not an opinion, especially my own. They are essential beliefs of any genuine Christian. Are you telling me as a theology major from Valparaiso University, that you don't believe either of the following to be true: 1. Virgin birth. 2. Miracles of Jesus I believe the virgin birth and the miracles are true, I just do not like being told that I should believe in a lieral conservative word-for-word form, as you expect me to do. I do question how some of these things happen because I know the Bible wasn't written in stone, unlike the Ten Commandments. I see. You believe they are true but when I suggest they are true you have a hard time because I'm a conservative who believes they are literally true word-for-word. Makes perfectly good sense.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 15:37:22 GMT -5
I singled out the virgin birth issue because I was surprised you mentioned it. Typically the virgin birth debate is taken to mean that anyone who denies it is denying that God planted the divine seed in Mary. That is clearly how you took it. However, the debate can also be over whether Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant. This debate is not about the divinity of Jesus, but is rather about the "perfection" or "purity" of Mary. In all honesty, arguing that Mary had sex but still received the seed of God could potentially weaken Jesus' perceived divinity, as it could more easily be argued that Jesus was Joseph's son. However, it still does not reach the level of heresy. The issues involved in the debate (the Hebrew word almah) can be found here. Wikipedia: Almah As an aside, why does studying the work of an unorthodox theologian at Valpo bother you? The work was not presented as "gospel", just as an opposing viewpoint in the historical-critical debate. When I read Mein Kampf in German History I wasn't being taught to become a Nazi was I? I believe both so your certainty of how I took it was wrong. She was a virgin and God did plant the divine seed. The bolding of print above in your comment tells me that you aren't quite so certain yourself as to whether or not Jesus was God. Jesus' perceived divinity? Now that's a very important doctrine of the Church and many heretics tried to claim in the early Church and even today that Jesus is not God. An absolute essential. You don't believe that? Wow! You Valpo U. grads are something else. It's worse than I could ever have imagined! I don't have a problem with an author of a book who takes issue with the tenets of genuine Christianity being brought into a class in order to show students what kind of nut cases there are out there in today's society who call themselves scholars and Christians but who are no different from the Gnostic's and other heretics who believed the same nonsense and were excommunicated by the early church fathers. Sure, show them what those who try to destroy the true faith are thinking. Do this so they can recognize heresy when they see it and beat it down like you would a redheaded stepchild. But my impression is that the textbook is not provided for that purpose. Instead, it is considered the standard view of the theology department and the professors and it's more of a tool of proselytizing and indoctrination of views which are popular but in reality they are in error. It's hip to be for open theology and be skeptical of everything and all authority. That's postmodernism. Why should we expect anything else coming from the halls of academia? It's too bad that the influence that has obviously been washed over VU grads is the god of irrational skepticism, a god that you worship even to the extent of questioning what most Christians throughout the history of Christianity have believed with all of their heart and soul. And you guys think this makes you deep thinkers and ones capable of thinking on your own? Despite what the liberal and apostate ELCA believes, both the issues of virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus and definitely the divinity of Christ (how in the Sam hell can you, as you say "weaken" divinity? ?) are essential Christian beliefs and doctrines. If you don't believe them, you can claim you are Christian all you want, but you are not a genuine believer whose eyes of faith have been opened by the Holy Spirit!
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 15:43:53 GMT -5
In terms of "we", I'm considering all the others who frequent this topic and either don't see eye-to-eye with you or don't agree with your form of proselytizing to the masses as you feel you must do constantly. You can read up and down this thread the names of many who have found contradiction in what you've said or don't see where you're coming from. Ok, so you speak for who? What contradiction? Name them. You may disagree, but I have not contradicted myself. Show me where I have.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Jan 10, 2007 15:47:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the theology lesson Mr. Roberts. Where do I send the check?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 15:49:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the theology lesson Mr. Roberts. Where do I send the check? Lay up your treasures in heaven. I don't want a penny from you.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 16:32:47 GMT -5
I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH IN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY Councils and Creeds The virginity of our Blessed Lady was defined under anathema in the third canon of the Lateran Council held in the time of Pope Martin I, A.D. 649. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as recited in the Mass, expresses belief in Christ "incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary"; the Apostles' Creed professes that Jesus Christ "was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary"; the older form of the same creed uses the expression: "born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary". These professions show: That the body of Jesus Christ was not sent down from Heaven, nor taken from earth as was that of Adam, but that its matter was supplied by Mary; that Mary co-operated in the formation of Christ's body as every other mother co-operates in the formation of the body of her child, since otherwise Christ could not be said to be born of Mary just as Eve cannot be said to be born of Adam; that the germ in whose development and growth into the Infant Jesus, Mary co-operated, was fecundated not by any human action, but by the Divine power attributed to the Holy Ghost; that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary's integrity, but also causing Christ's birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that "the Light from Light" proceeded from his mother's womb as a light shed on the world; that the "power of the Most High" passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that "the body of the Word" formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits. Church Fathers The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, H.E., V, viii), Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35), Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX), St. Justin (Dial. con. Tryph., 84), St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5); St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7), Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i), Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43), St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages), St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14), St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3), St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii). St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18). The contrary doctrine is called: "madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix), "madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii), "sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv), "impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2), "perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii), "full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84), "perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3), "heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi). St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents of Our Lady's virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23). Sacred Scripture There can be no doubt as to the Church's teaching and as to the existence of an early Christian tradition maintaining the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady and consequently the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The mystery of the virginal conception is furthermore taught by the third Gospel and confirmed by the first. According to St. Luke (1:34-35), "Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [aka, virgin]And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." The intercourse of man is excluded in the conception of Our Blessed Lord. According to St. Matthew, St. Joseph, when perplexed by the pregnancy of Mary, is told by the angel: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost" (1:20).
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 17:00:59 GMT -5
The potentate: Do you honestly have doubts about the divinity of Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 10, 2007 18:08:59 GMT -5
The potentate: Do you honestly have doubts about the divinity of Jesus? I have no idea where the bolding came from. It isn't in my original post. Did you add it in? No, you misunderstood me. What I was discussing there is the fact that many theologians believe that the early Christians highlighted Mary's virginity to forestall the argument that Jesus was Joseph's son. Perhaps I should have said "In all honesty, arguing that Mary had sex but still received the seed of God could potentially weaken the way Jesus' divinity is perceived [amongst early Christians]". Sorry that was unclear. Trust me, the book was not presented as you fear.
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 10, 2007 18:11:37 GMT -5
Just to satisfy my curiosity (after the liberal and apostate ELCA crack), what denomination are you a member of?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 18:14:42 GMT -5
The potentate: Do you honestly have doubts about the divinity of Jesus? I have no idea where the bolding came from. It isn't in my original post. Did you add it in? No, you misunderstood me. What I was discussing there is the fact that many theologians believe that the early Christians highlighted Mary's virginity to forestall the argument that Jesus was Joseph's son. Perhaps I should have said "In all honesty, arguing that Mary had sex but still received the seed of God could potentially weaken the way Jesus' divinity is perceived [amongst early Christians]". Sorry that was unclear. Trust me, the book was not presented as you fear. Yeah, I did the bold. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Do you have doubts about the divinity of Jesus or did you dodge that question intentionally? Don't worry, I won't burn you at the stake if you say yes. It is not a bad thing to doubt something about Christianity. I just hope you work it out eventually.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 10, 2007 18:20:36 GMT -5
Just to satisfy my curiosity (after the liberal and apostate ELCA crack), what denomination are you a member of? I am not a member of any denomination.
|
|
|
Post by valpotentate on Jan 11, 2007 8:32:59 GMT -5
Just to satisfy my curiosity (after the liberal and apostate ELCA crack), what denomination are you a member of? I am not a member of any denomination. To answer your earlier question: no, I have no doubts about the divinity of Christ. Do you attend a non-denominational church then?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Jan 11, 2007 8:39:49 GMT -5
I am not a member of any denomination. To answer your earlier question: no, I have no doubts about the divinity of Christ. Do you attend a non-denominational church then? I am a recent convert to the Catholic Church but I've been an agitator and obnoxious since birth.
|
|