Happy Immaculate Conception!

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Your making things to easy George..

That is how I make it easy for me too...

First the centurian and his possesions are the first gentiles to enter the CHurch..

Well, it certainly was a type of second Pentecost for the Gentiles...

Paul hasn't even been yet converted when Peter has the vision..

Historical sequencing is not my strong suit, but if what you are saying is true, then does that mean that Acts 10 precedes Acts 9? The vision is in 10, and Saul's conversion is in 9.

In the vision the Lord is making a new revelation to Peter and Peter alone is visited while fasting on the rooftop.. They are going to the house of Israel first because the Lord hadn't revealed that his plan of salvation included the Gentile.. There is no hipocracy on Peters's Part because it is about the israel's Messiah up until that point.. Which took powerful visions and signs to reveal..

You are quite right - Forgive me... I had conflated Gal 2 with Acts 10... See how easy it is for even ME to see my own error in this manner? So when does Gal 2 take place? Is it many years after Peter began the baptism of the Gentiles?

Christ came to do the will of his Father... He was fulfilling the Prophecy of Eliacim by handing the Keys to Peter.. One man is what the Prophecy reveals.. Just as John the Baptist is later revealed by Christ as the Elijiah.. Not a bunch of baptizers... He was the one to whom heaven revealed what nobody else could see.. He was the one that heaven revealed George.. Christ saw the sign of the Father and who the Father had chosen..

Er... The ONE given the Keys, the one Man, was Christ...

I have already shown you that Christ, in turn, gave them to ALL the Apostles...

He very clearly did NOT give them to Peter alone... Although He DID promise them to Peter...

What you claim is a hipocracy is something that happens later and it isn't a hipocracy, but a situation that even Paul understood.. Paul understands this and Later testifies this about the Jews and his feelings... Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles but wasn't so originally.. Gentiles had entered before Paul was even converted through Peter not Paul... You do error George in your testimony because you have scewed the events to your reasonings.. Peter and Paul were both sacrificed in Rome not Constantinople because it didn't even exist.. And there the Sepulchre was made..

Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy, which was motivated, just as at the Cross of Christ, out of Peter's FEAR of the Jews from James... I mean, unless you don't believe Scripture...

Protestants Join you in your distaine for Rome and their Prophetic justification of such things are the worse tripe you will ever read...

The disdain is for the Papal self-elevation of himself over Christ, Who is the real and actual Head of His Own Body, the Church... No Orthodox Bishp has any authority over any other jurisdiction other than his own... As Canon Law mandates...

And then for the heretical doctrines Rome elevated after this self-elevation...

Arsenios

[maudman]

That is how I make it easy for me too...


Well, it certainly was a type of second Pentecost for the Gentiles...


Historical sequencing is not my strong suit, but if what you are saying is true, then does that mean that Acts 10 precedes Acts 9? The vision is in 10, and Saul's conversion is in 9.


You are quite right - Forgive me... I had conflated Gal 2 with Acts 10... See how easy it is for even ME to see my own error in this manner? So when does Gal 2 take place? Is it many years after Peter began the baptism of the Gentiles?

Let me address this first and add a few things.. First Jews, The most religious ones were often biggots and racist.. They had superiority complex because of the Covenant with God.. When Peter has the Vision it is the first of any gentile conversions.. The three blankets represent the three servents Cornelious sends... Peter may not have gone to the gate when they arrived asking for his audiance.. But the Vision had Changed Peters mind... Up until this point its all about Israel... The First gentile Convert into the Christian faith is a Roman and he isn't just any Roman...

Er... The ONE given the Keys, the one Man, was Christ...

I have already shown you that Christ, in turn, gave them to ALL the Apostles...

He very clearly did NOT give them to Peter alone... Although He DID promise them to Peter...

Well this may be a problem for some.. But clearly the Lord in Isaiah is handing to the Eliacim.. Christ isn't the Eliacim.. But the Lord... who is handing the Keys to Peter.. Peter is the Eliacim... The Eliacim is a man in the house of David not the Lord Himself.. He is the servent in the house of the Lord.. He's a man not a Christ

Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy, which was motivated, just as at the Cross of Christ, out of Peter's FEAR of the Jews from James... I mean, unless you don't believe Scripture...

The disdain is for the Papal self-elevation of himself over Christ, Who is the real and actual Head of His Own Body, the Church... No Orthodox Bishp has any authority over any other jurisdiction other than his own... As Canon Law mandates...

And then for the heretical doctrines Rome elevated after this self-elevation...

Arsenios

Peter didn't fear the Jews from James but rather desired not to have their biggotry and racism clouding the Gospel of Christ the Messiah.. Those Jews Who peter was witnessing to were some of the worst and Paul knew it and so did Peter.. But its to the Jew first and then the Gentile... They had been around those kinds of Jews and knew exactly what Peter was up Against.. """Peter before the vision maybe years before wasn't much different"""" Apparently they Had hung around Longer than Peter wanted.. Jews were their Persecutors... Paul came to Peters rescue because he was in a tuff spot..

Some time later these event transpire after Pauls conversion.. And way after the Vision on the roof top... Exact Date? maybe years I'm just not sure exactly..

Peter was avoiding the Gentiles so their presents wouldn't distract those Jews... Yes they had their feelings hurt.. Paul steps up saying he's the Apostles to the gentiles.. Certain Jews wouldn't have given Peter the time of Day in his witness if he would have been seen associating with those gentiles... Were talking about real potiential Slime balls here, maybe even head hunters Checking things out a little ..

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Let me address this first and add a few things.. First Jews, The most religious ones were often bigots and racist.. They had superiority complex because of the Covenant with God.. When Peter has the Vision it is the first of any gentile conversions.. The three blankets represent the three servants Cornelius sends... Peter may not have gone to the gate when they arrived asking for his audience.. But the Vision had Changed Peters mind... Up until this point its all about Israel... The First gentile Convert into the Christian faith is a Roman and he isn't just any Roman...

The Roman Cornelius, the Centurion, SUMMONED Peter to come to him... Peter needed correction... Even as he was being reminded that it is he who is the Apostle by Cornelius' piety at his arrival... Now I am not privy to the interpretation of the Vision. It obviously makes all foods clean, but Peter interprets it as making the Gentiles clean... [ "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean".]

And as for Peter not having gone to the Gate, Scripture records that it was not the vision, but the Holy Spirit Who COMMANDED him to go to them and to doubt nothing...

The three blankets? I had taken that to mean the concurrence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... Just as Peter had thrice denied Christ, and thereby would have been thrice denied BY Christ to the Father, save his deep repentance and subsequent re-instatement by Christ's thrice questioning of his heart...

So can you show any Church Fathers of the first thousand years of Christianity who affirm this view of yours that the three blankets signify the three messengers sent by Cornelius? Scripture would seem to indicate that it is the heavenly earth [knit at the four corners] descending:

Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him,
as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

Well this may be a problem for some.. But clearly the Lord in Isaiah is handing to the Eliacim.. Christ isn't the Eliacim.. But the Lord... who is handing the Keys to Peter.. Peter is the Eliacim... The Eliacim is a man in the house of David not the Lord Himself.. He is the servent in the house of the Lord.. He's a man not a Christ

Well, I am not familiar with this accounting of yours, but on its face, it seems to suffer an obvious error, unless I am mistaken in my understanding of the -im nouns signifying plurality... Elohim, Seraphim, etc all indicate not one, as you insist, but some to many...

And the simple fact is that you are shifting, little by little, away from the written text, the Biblical and historical account of the Church, and turning it into a narrative which it is not... eg the glorification of Peter, when it is the CORRECTION of Peter that is clearly in view...

Plus, Scripture tells us that it was out of fear of the Jews following James

Peter didn't fear the Jews from James but rather desired not to have their bigotry and racism clouding the Gospel of Christ the Messiah.. Those Jews Who peter was witnessing to were some of the worst and Paul knew it and so did Peter.. But its to the Jew first and then the Gentile... They had been around those kinds of Jews and knew exactly what Peter was up Against.. """Peter before the vision maybe years before wasn't much different"""" Apparently they Had hung around Longer than Peter wanted.. Jews were their Persecutors... Paul came to Peters rescue because he was in a tuff spot..

Then, regardless of the quality of the Jews, you are now declaring Galatians 2 to be false when it tells us:

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Indeed, when Paul came to Jerusalem after 12 years to confirm his Apostleship to the Gentiles, he went to James, Cephas and John, and then later, in Antioch, had to correct the hypocrisy of Cephas who was AGAIN yielding to his FEAR of the Jews, just as he had done DURING Christ's crucifixion, and was sinning AGAIN...

It was only at the END of his life, if I have his [Peter's] hagiography right, that he FINALLY overcame this fear, for he was AGAIN fleeing Rome to save his hide, when he encountered Christ on the road AWAY FROM Rome, and was asked by Christ: "Do I have to be crucified AGAIN for you, Peter?" And He THEN turned back [repented] to Rome, and was crucified upside down...

Some time later these event transpire after Pauls conversion.. And way after the Vision on the roof top... Exact Date? maybe years I'm just not sure exactly..

It was that uncertainty that had fooled me into my erroneous conflation... I am a lousy historian...

Peter was avoiding the Gentiles so their presence wouldn't distract those Jews... Yes they had their feelings hurt.. Paul steps up saying he's the Apostles to the gentiles.. Certain Jews wouldn't have given Peter the time of Day in his witness if he would have been seen associating with those gentiles... Were talking about real potiential Slime balls here, maybe even head hunters Checking things out a little ..

If you can show me this version of things from some of the Fathers of the UNDIVIDED Church of the first Christian thousand years, I MIGHT buy into it... You seem to be polishing Peter up when he was still in the process of overcoming the fear which he had first tried to hide when he boasted to Christ in his false bravado that he would NEVER deny Him on the Cross...

Arsenios

[maudman]

The Roman Cornelius, the Centurion, SUMMONED Peter to come to him... Peter needed correction... Even as he was being reminded that it is he who is the Apostle by Cornelius' piety at his arrival... Now I am not privy to the interpretation of the Vision. It obviously makes all foods clean, but Peter interprets it as making the Gentiles clean... [ "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean".]


And as for Peter not having gone to the Gate, Scripture records that it was not the vision, but the Holy Spirit Who COMMANDED him to go to them and to doubt nothing...

The three blankets? I had taken that to mean the concurrence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit... Just as Peter had thrice denied Christ, and thereby would have been thrice denied BY Christ to the Father, save his deep repentance and subsequent re-instatement by Christ's thrice questioning of his heart...

The Lord wasn't cleansing food.. The Jew saw the gentile as common and unclean because he ate food that was forbidden.. The Old testament is full of those who were common and unclean its how the Jews wrote.. You knew nothing about the vision and you still don't George.. The Lord was calling Cornelius.. You were wrong about the dates and your wrong in your smurffing the internet for the answer.. It has nothing to do with food but those who are considered unclean and Common.. Take and eat is how the vision was played out..

So can you show any Church Fathers of the first thousand years of Christianity who affirm this view of yours that the three blankets signify the three messengers sent by Cornelius? Scripture would seem to indicate that it is the heavenly earth [knit at the four corners] descending:


Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him,
as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

"""Call not thou common or unclean that which I have Cleansed is the statement george""".. Christ didn't cleanse food he cleansed the Gentiles"".. The Cross George.. Its the Lord comin to Peter in a vision...

Well, I am not familiar with this accounting of yours, but on its face, it seems to suffer an obvious error, unless I am mistaken in my understanding of the -im nouns signifying plurality... Elohim, Seraphim, etc all indicate not one, as you insist, but some to many...

George your trying to hard and your reaching to find fault.. You didn't even have a background and now your sounding like a Protestant... Your mistaken George in that you knew anything about it really..

And the simple fact is that you are shifting, little by little, away from the written text, the Biblical and historical account of the Church, and turning it into a narrative which it is not... eg the glorification of Peter, when it is the CORRECTION of Peter that is clearly in view...

Plus, Scripture tells us that it was out of fear of the Jews following James

Then, regardless of the quality of the Jews, you are now declaring Galatians 2 to be false when it tells us:

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Indeed, when Paul came to Jerusalem after 12 years to confirm his Apostleship to the Gentiles, he went to James, Cephas and John, and then later, in Antioch, had to correct the hypocrisy of Cephas who was AGAIN yielding to his FEAR of the Jews, just as he had done DURING Christ's crucifixion, and was sinning AGAIN...

It was only at the END of his life, if I have his [Peter's] hagiography right, that he FINALLY overcame this fear, for he was AGAIN fleeing Rome to save his hide, when he encountered Christ on the road AWAY FROM Rome, and was asked by Christ: "Do I have to be crucified AGAIN for you, Peter?" And He THEN turned back [repented] to Rome, and was crucified upside down...



It was that uncertainty that had fooled me into my erroneous conflation... I am a lousy historian...



If you can show me this version of things from some of the Fathers of the UNDIVIDED Church of the first Christian thousand years, I MIGHT buy into it... You seem to be polishing Peter up when he was still in the process of overcoming the fear which he had first tried to hide when he boasted to Christ in his false bravado that he would NEVER deny Him on the Cross...

Arsenios

I never said Peter wasn't responsible for what happen.. Show me that.. No I said Peter was in a situation because of those Jews that came from James.. Your the one Bashing Peter Because of what we say.. That's always been your MO... Trying to POINT to his flaws... I have never said anything that judges a man such as the One the Lord Annointed.. Your Wrong, I don't judge them because I have no Idea what they were going through by experience..

Your the one calling Peter a hipocrit but you have only judged yourself..

I only said Peter in front of the Jews didn't accociate with gentiles while they were there... I didn't say why accept the Jews he was around wouldn't cater to Gentiles and that he didn't want that... I know its out of Fear.. I never said it wasn't.. I said he didn't want their boigtry clouding His witness.. Why did James send them to Peter?

Paul's issue with Peter is that he did something that hurt others.. Period... Paul had been doing the same thing. He was a Jew to a Jew and he was Greek to Greek and he was a Roman to a Roman.. Paul was better at it than Peter because he had been doing it before he was converted.. They were witnessing CHrist and they appeared as those they witnessed too.. They weren't social reformers but religious reformers first... And bigotry was intergrated with Some Jewish secs.. A man who talks about the apostles such as you do to justify something about yourself is pittiful George.. No one has ever believed the Apostles were perfect of themselves but you seem to find pleasure in attacking Peter...

Your the Hipocrit George.. Because you wouldn't want anyone attacking some of your favorite church Fathers... We Don't Polish Peter for what he was as a human but for what we believe God has done through him...

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The Lord wasn't cleansing food.. The Jew saw the gentile as common and unclean because he ate food that was forbidden.. The Old testament is full of those who were common and unclean its how the Jews wrote.. You knew nothing about the vision and you still don't George.. The Lord was calling Cornelius.. You were wrong about the dates and your wrong in your smurffing the internet for the answer.. It has nothing to do with food but those who are considered unclean and Common.. Take and eat is how the vision was played out..




"""Call not thou common or unclean that which I have Cleansed is the statement george""".. Christ didn't cleanse food he cleansed the Gentiles"".. The Cross George.. Its the Lord comin to Peter in a vision...



George your trying to hard and your reaching to find fault.. You didn't even have a background and now your sounding like a Protestant... Your mistaken George in that you knew anything about it really..



I never said Peter wasn't responsible for what happen.. Show me that.. No I said Peter was in a situation because of those Jews that came from James.. Your the one Bashing Peter Because of what we say.. That's always been your MO... Trying to POINT to his flaws... I have never said anything that judges a man such as the One the Lord Annointed.. Your Wrong, I don't judge them because I have no Idea what they were going through by experience..

Your the one calling Peter a hipocrit but you have only judged yourself..

I only said Peter in front of the Jews didn't accociate with gentiles while they were there... I didn't say why accept the Jews he was around wouldn't cater to Gentiles and that he didn't want that... I know its out of Fear.. I never said it wasn't.. I said he didn't want their boigtry clouding His witness.. Why did James send them to Peter?

Paul's issue with Peter is that he did something that hurt others.. Period... Paul had been doing the same thing. He was a Jew to a Jew and he was Greek to Greek and he was a Roman to a Roman.. Paul was better at it than Peter because he had been doing it before he was converted.. They were witnessing CHrist and they appeared as those they witnessed too.. They weren't social reformers but religious reformers first... And bigotry was intergrated with Some Jewish secs.. A man who talks about the apostles such as you do to justify something about yourself is pittiful George.. No one has ever believed the Apostles were perfect of themselves but you seem to find pleasure in attacking Peter...

Your the Hipocrit George.. Because you wouldn't want anyone attacking some of your favorite church Fathers... We Don't Polish Peter for what he was as a human but for what we believe God has done through him...

My Brother please forgive me!

I am a far worse sinner than you...

We can leave this...

I know you have had revelations...

You are in my prayers...

They are not true...

Arsenios

[maudman]

My Brother please forgive me!

I am a far worse sinner than you...

We can leave this...

I know you have had revelations...

You are in my prayers...

They are not true...

Arsenios

Hello George,

Well had to leave for the weekend and no internet..

George you seem to think I may be thinking I have had revelations.. Not really... I simply give reasons why we believe what we believe... The things I say come from understadning what I believe or have been taught... Not by Orthodox although we can surely bare witness to the truth of some of their testimony...

My whole Point on Peter is that he wasn't fearing for the reasons you gave.. Peter was the only one of the apostles to take a sword and confront those who sought Christ.. The Lord corrected him for his misplaced courage.. Peter wasn't fleeing form city to city out of fear as some might think.. Else Paul and all the Apostles were quitly of such cowardess... Christ ministry consisted of such things.. He commanded them to flee from city to city when their witness brought on certain situations.. There were reasons for all these things that were commanded by the Lord... Very profound reasons.. Paul was beat severely and suffered permanet affliction and it took a long time for him to recover both emotionally and physically...

We can Leave it.. Like I said I'm not trying to convince people I'm right.. But merely cause us to stop and ask honestly about things we often don't consider..

Thanks for the Prayers

Peace and God bless George..

[OneSizeFit]

In a word, No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

interesting, basically all the original churches held this in the tradition. did not know this, thanks.

[OneSizeFit]

1)
Where it is said that Apostolic Succession is the ground of truth? In the teachings of those who style themselves as the successors of the apostles. Not in the Bible.

They replaced Judas, no? That would be a succession.

[OneSizeFit]

Well, I read the whole thread.

its easy to write of the orthodox belief of immaculate conception if we throw out the notion of original sin as well. rational gaze was honest in this respect, and i very much liked his post. but everyone else on the reformation side seems to be skirting around the issues of original sin and the incarnation of GOD (last time i checked Jesus is God, correct?).

but if we are all born with sin nature, then mary was as well, then logically jesus was also and could not have been the sinless lamb. so either god doesnt mind getting his hands dirty, original sin is false, or mary was immaculately conceived free of original sin.

i used to scoff of things like the immaculate conception, and calling mary the mother of god, but if we draw out the theology of christianity, both protestant and catholic, these are logical conclusions of the of the incarnation.

[RBerman]

They replaced Judas, no? That would be a succession.

They tried to replace Judas with Matthias (with a coin toss, no less!), who is never heard from again in Scripture. To me, that counts as evidence against Apostolic succession.

[RBerman]

if we are all born with sin nature, then mary was as well, then logically jesus was also and could not have been the sinless lamb. so either god doesnt mind getting his hands dirty, original sin is false, or mary was immaculately conceived free of original sin. i used to scoff of things like the immaculate conception, and calling mary the mother of god, but if we draw out the theology of christianity, both protestant and catholic, these are logical conclusions of the of the incarnation.

By that logic, Mary could only be immaculately conceived if both of her parents were immaculately conceived. And then both of their parents, etc. Go back far enough and you'd have to say that all of Israel at some point in the past was immaculately conceived, all the way back to Cain and Abel.

[OneSizeFit]

They tried to replace Judas with Matthias (with a coin toss, no less!), who is never heard from again in Scripture. To me, that counts as evidence against Apostolic succession.

How do we know the author of John was John the Apostle?

[Kelp]

They tried to replace Judas with Matthias (with a coin toss, no less!), who is never heard from again in Scripture.

Was the Urim and Thummim a "coin toss?" Besides, Thomas never shows up again, does that mean he wasn't an Apostle?

Jump to uncharitable conclusions much?

[OneSizeFit]

good point.

[RBerman]

How do we know the author of John was John the Apostle?

Internal evidence suggests it; "the apostle Jesus loved" shows up places that John Bar-Zebedee shows up in the synoptic gospels, and the gospel of John never refers to the Apostle John by that name. That same disciple is identified as the author by the last few verses of John's gospel.