Ben
OC.Net Guru
Were you once a Protestant?
Yes. Baptist. Why do you think I have these issues? ;DBen said:Were you once a Protestant?
But aren't you judging ME now, friend?Ben said:oh yes your past invlovment in the evils of heresy is obvious. Just confirming the obvious...thanks. And one might wonder why you didnt solve these issues you have with the faith prior to converting.
What exact "issues" are you talking about? I would be happy to tell you if you want to define them for me. And I am not being sarcastic here. I really would not have a problem telling you my reasons and views.Ben said:No....I am simply asking why you didnt solve your "issues" with the faith prior to converting.
I guess you could say that. My Priest just says that if I have not reached that point in Orthodoxy where I am comfortable with a specific part, then he sees no reason for me to be forced into something that I am not ready to accept.Ben said:but sadly you have enough issues to prevent you from attending certain services in the Church.
Then please explain to me the The Age of Iconoclasts. Was the teaching of the Church correct during this period?Ben said:I believe the faith is not a buffet, you can not pick and choose. I do believe that one must accept the teachings of the true Church 100%.
(bump)Doubting Thomas said:Regarding some of the hyperbole containted in the Akathist I cited, I wonder if some of it may be justified in the following manner:
1. In regards, to Mary being the only "intercessor, comforter, and help", it should be noted that all three of these descriptions are properly ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the NT. Perhaps, since the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary and the power of the Highest "overshadowed" her in such a unique way in the Incarnation, these exclusive hyperbolic statements may indeed be in acknowledgement of this unique relationship with the Holy Spirit.
2. I understand that Mary was (and still is) regarded as a type of the Church. Therefore, when one says he is seeking Mary's exclusive "guardianship" or "refuge" or "protection", could this be perhaps an acknowledgement of the mystical association between Mary and the Church?
Sorry, if these thoughts are off-base in anyway. Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize how such seemingly idolatrous language is addressed to Mary when Orthodoxy maintains that Mary is NOT to be worshipped, particularly if I may be otherwise convinced that Orthodoxy is the True Church kept from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit :-
Wow...I certainly don't feel as if I'm seeing things clearly :-, but thanks for the compliment.prodromos said:DT,
I really appreciated your second point as it is not something I had really considered before. I'm not sure that the words of the Akathist hymn can be understood as speaking of the church, but this clay pot is still pretty dirty on the inside, you may be seeing things a lot clearer than me.
I do think it may be pertinent--thanks for sharing.We celebrate Epiphany as one of the times when all three persons of the Holy Trinity were manifest and some time ago it dawned on me that Mary had experienced a similiar epiphany at her annunciation (the will of the Father, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, conceiving the Son), so now everytime I look at an icon of Panagia with the Christ child I consider myself to be looking at an icon of the Holy Trinity in that sense.
I don't know if this is really pertinent to the topic at hand, its just something I wanted to share.
John.
Maybe YOU should get YOUR history straight on this one. The issue of whether to call Mary "Christotokos" or "Theotokos" was really connected to the Church's battle against Nestorianism. As the Nestorians taught, "He whom Mary bore is merely Christ's human person, as separated from the divine Person of God the Word; he is not God incarnate, so we cannot call Mary 'Birthgiver of God' (Theotokos)."antiderivative said:This guy realy messed with history. The whole controversy over calling Mary Christotokos instead of Theotokos really had little to do with Mary. It had to do with the Arian heretics wanting to say that there was a difference between Christ and God. In other words, Jesus was not God, so we should call his mother Christotokos instead of Theotokos.
I disagree. I think it is neither commendable, nor keeps the Holy Trinity as the focus of the Christian Faith. All doctrines about the Theotokos are Christological doctrines, and all Christological doctrines are Trinitarian doctrines. We cannot claim to know anything about the Trinity if we don't know the truth about the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity.ytterbiumanalyst said:this is a commendable position insofar as their commitment to keeping the Holy Trinity as the focus of our faith.
I was told that people, Protestant or not, must realize that Mary's role as "Mother of God" is otherworldly in that She possessed a humility that was not of this sinful world. With Mary, her role as Mother of God is actually one of humility and obedience and love, not of worldly and royal standing...Protestants always have trouble with this issue. How could the eternal God be born of a temporal woman? Yet they have no problem believing that the eternal Christ was given a human body in the Theotokos' womb.
Good point. In the Gospel reading for the Feast of the Annunciation (celebrated yesterday on the Gregorian Calendar) we read Mary's statement to Gabriel, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38) What greater humility have we then this act of free obedience to God's word?Myrrh23 said:I was told that people, Protestant or not, must realize that Mary's role as "Mother of God" is otherworldly in that She possessed a humility that was not of this sinful world. With Mary, her role as Mother of God is actually one of humility and obedience and love, not of worldly and royal standing...Sorta like Opposite Day, or something...
![]()
*shrugs*Symeon said:Anyway, why was this antique of a thread resurrected?
But in the "biological sense" women don't give birth to "Natures" like "humanity" or "divinity", they give birth to Persons. And the Person Mary gave birth to is God, hence she is the God-Birther (Theotokos) or "Mother of God".Cleopas said:Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.
Mary provided Him with His humanity. She was not just a vessel or a womb that carried Him without contributing some of herself to Him, as any mother does. Not to be facetious, but if they'd had DNA testing in those days, there would have been a match if they'd ever done a DNA test on Him. As said, Mary didn't just provide a womb and that's it. If Mary had said "no", we would still be waiting for the Messiah. God created Mary to be the one to bring His Son into the world in the Flesh. He created her to be the "New Eve" who would obey God and bring His salvation into the world in the flesh. A mother is mother to all of her child, including the parts that come from the other parent. No mother is mother to just the parts of her child that come from her. If Jesus was divine during His conception, His time in her womb, and afterwards, then she is also mother to that nature as well. The term "Mother of God" is used to protect Jesus's having always been divine. Nestorius and others tried to say that Jesus obtained His divinity later (some argue that it was during His baptism).Cleopas said:I'm in a bit of quandry on how to reply.
I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.
Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.
Not only that, Ozzy, but Christ Himself chose not to end her role at His cruxifiction and death, but gave her to Humanity as our Mother. This is further supported at the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, as well as the Apostles. Besides...us rowdy human kids need a mother...But in the "biological sense" women don't give birth to "Natures" like "humanity" or "divinity", they give birth to Persons. And the Person Mary gave birth to is God, hence she is the God-Birther (Theotokos) or "Mother of God".
Cleopas,Cleopas said:I'm in a bit of quandry on how to reply.
I believe Mary was the mother of Jesus who was both human and divine in His one person. So in that respect she is the mother of God, albeit God in the flesh.
Yet, in a biological sense she is only the producer of the humanity of Christ. His divinity is self sustained and eternal, else it is not divinity at all. Thus, in this sense, she is not the mother of God, that is of divinity.