Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Book Plunge: Behold Your Mother

  1. #1
    Department Head Apologiaphoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Corryton
    Faith
    Trinitarian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,365
    Amen (Given)
    295
    Amen (Received)
    3016

    Book Plunge: Behold Your Mother

    Again, this one is too long. Just a link today.

    Link.

  2. #2
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,230
    Amen (Given)
    6265
    Amen (Received)
    11963
    Let’s start with a statement on tradition. Generally, I find that when I’m with an Orthodox or a Catholic, they tend to want to milk a passage like 2 Thess. 2:15 for all it’s worth. Interestingly, both of them think that their traditions are the ones that are being talked about.
    Let's take a step back here. If there wasn't tradition to be clung to, why is Paul talking about it? See also 1 Cor 11:2, which is also referring to traditions passed by word of mouth.
    Maybe it’s just me, but I find it difficult to think that the sex life, or lack thereof, of Mary and Joseph was a church tradition at the time. I do think Luke had access to Mary as a source, but it seems odd to picture him interviewing her and say “So how often did you and Joseph have sex after that?”
    You appear to be importing a modern notion here, Nick. If Mary confirmed the Virgin Birth, it's not exactly a huge leap to Mary and Joseph's relationship after said birth. Think of it this way: Tradition says that Joseph was a widower, and only married Mary to protect her and did not intend to consummate the relationship. Further, your wife just gave birth to God Incarnate, making her a literal temple. Would you feel worthy to go there?
    My position on tradition is simple. Test all things. Hold to that which is true. Why do I accept Scripture as infallible? Because it proves itself over and over. Why do I not accept tradition as infallible? Because it doesn’t prove itself like that.
    Scripture IS tradition. You appear to reject part of it here - namely, teachings passed on by mouth, to which it attests.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  3. #3
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,810
    Amen (Given)
    8058
    Amen (Received)
    8389
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Let's take a step back here. If there wasn't tradition to be clung to, why is Paul talking about it? See also 1 Cor 11:2, which is also referring to traditions passed by word of mouth.
    But, as I believe Nick is saying, WHICH tradition? Paul is speaking to some high context folks who knew what tradition he was meaning. And besides, just because THAT tradition was acceptable, doesn't mean others are.

    You appear to be importing a modern notion here, Nick. If Mary confirmed the Virgin Birth, it's not exactly a huge leap to Mary and Joseph's relationship after said birth.
    How so? A sexless marriage was shameful from what I can tell.

    Think of it this way: Tradition says that Joseph was a widower,
    And where/when did that tradition begin? Like the perpetual virginity and queen of heaven things, they appear well after all of the Apostles were gone.

    and only married Mary to protect her and did not intend to consummate the relationship.
    An unconsummated relationship was shameful. In Jewish thought, it would have been against Torah to disobey the command to be fruitful and multiply.

    Further, your wife just gave birth to God Incarnate, making her a literal temple.
    Uh, no it didn't make her a literal temple.

    Would you feel worthy to go there?
    Would you tell God no when he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply?

    Scripture IS tradition.
    But not all traditions are scripture.

    You appear to reject part of it here - namely, teachings passed on by mouth, to which it attests.
    More like later additions that originated well after the canon of scripture was closed


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  4. Amen mossrose, Jedidiah, 37818 amen'd this post.
  5. #4
    tWebber 37818's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So. California
    Faith
    Nontraditional Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,185
    Amen (Given)
    815
    Amen (Received)
    444
    There is the existing understanding that the word of mouth traditions referred to were by then living Apostles. Nothing beyond then in time.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  6. #5
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    21,230
    Amen (Given)
    6265
    Amen (Received)
    11963
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    But, as I believe Nick is saying, WHICH tradition? Paul is speaking to some high context folks who knew what tradition he was meaning. And besides, just because THAT tradition was acceptable, doesn't mean others are.
    Nick is fully aware, I'm sure, that Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition were more or less synonymous for the first millenium after Christ. Is that cause for throwing up one's hands and trashing all of it? No. If Protestants could agree on what was acceptable and what wasn't, you might have some sort of case.
    How so? A sexless marriage was shameful from what I can tell.
    Based on....?
    And where/when did that tradition begin? Like the perpetual virginity and queen of heaven things, they appear well after all of the Apostles were gone.
    Argument from silence. You have zero evidence that they displaced any other tradition.
    An unconsummated relationship was shameful. In Jewish thought, it would have been against Torah to disobey the command to be fruitful and multiply.
    You mean, in Jewish thought not recorded until well after the time in question. Another argument from silence.
    Uh, no it didn't make her a literal temple.
    She contained God in the flesh, so yes, it did.
    Would you tell God no when he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply?
    You're taking that rather absolutely. If that were an absolute command, then widows and widowers would be obliged to remarry.
    But not all traditions are scripture.
    I never said they were.
    More like later additions that originated well after the canon of scripture was closed
    Well, no. The canon of scripture was never, in point of fact, formally closed. It was essentially closed by the end of the 4th century, although Revelation generally and Hebrews in the West were still in dispute centuries later. By that time, traditions like veneration of relics and prayers to the saints were quite well established - even if we go by the earliest evidence we have of such practices.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  7. #6
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,810
    Amen (Given)
    8058
    Amen (Received)
    8389
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Nick is fully aware, I'm sure, that Orthodox and Roman Catholic tradition were more or less synonymous for the first millenium after Christ. Is that cause for throwing up one's hands and trashing all of it? No. If Protestants could agree on what was acceptable and what wasn't, you might have some sort of case.
    And if the Orthodox and RCC could separate their own later traditions from those of the Apostles, especially WRT things like the perpetual virginity of Mary (of late third century origin), then maybe we Protestants could get a bit more on board with "tradition"

    Based on....?
    Scripture. Nowhere do we see God commanding abstinence in a marriage. Paul even says abstaining should only be "for a while"

    Argument from silence. You have zero evidence that they displaced any other tradition.
    When a tradition suddenly appears 2 centuries after the fact, it isn't an argument from silence.

    You mean, in Jewish thought not recorded until well after the time in question. Another argument from silence.
    No. In the Ketubah texts from the first 400 years BC, as explained by 1st Century contemporary of Gamaliel, Rabbi Eliezer:

    Source: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9351/b65e76f94cff0222f62d1e8b1d9543098dd7.pdf

    If a man vowed to have no intercourse with his wife, the School of Shammai say: [She may consent] for two weeks. And the School of Hillel say: For one week [only]. Disciples [of the Sages] may continue absent for thirty days against the will [of their wives] while they occupy themselves in the study of the Law; and labourers for one week. The duty of marriage enjoined in the Law is: every day for them that are unoccupied; twice a week for labourers; once a week for ass-drivers; once every thirty days for camel-drivers; and once every six months for sailors. So R. Eliezer

    © Copyright Original Source



    Citing Exodus 21:10
    If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

    Source: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465161/jewish/The-Purposes-of-Marriage-in-Judaism.htm


    Jewish law goes so far as to state that if either partner to the marriage refuses to participate in conjugal relations, (under certain conditions) that person is considered rebellious (mored) and the other spouse can sue for divorce. The Bible records three fundamental, unqualified rights of the woman in marriage—food, clothing, and conjugal rights—but only a refusal of the last dubs the husband a mored. That surely is because onah is the essence of the marriage. Food and clothing can be handled in court, but a withdrawal from onah is a functional termination of married life.

    © Copyright Original Source




    She contained God in the flesh, so yes, it did.
    The Temples of the OT were where the Spirit of God dwelled. And if we are to take that literally and comparatively, we should never feel worthy to "go there" with our Christian wives, since the Spirit of God dwells within them perpetually. God residing temporarily in her body did not make her off limits to her wifely duties or rights according to Torah.

    You're taking that rather absolutely. If that were an absolute command, then widows and widowers would be obliged to remarry.
    Not true. It's a command for the married.

    I never said they were.
    The RCC seems to think theirs are.

    Well, no. The canon of scripture was never, in point of fact, formally closed. It was essentially closed by the end of the 4th century, although Revelation generally and Hebrews in the West were still in dispute centuries later.
    The early church that formally closed it had certain criteria for what was scripture and what wasn't, as I'm sure you know. Something that came about in the 3rd or 4th century that claimed to be truth, i.e the later traditions of the perpetual virginity and the assumption of Mary, were only accepted as matters of truth on the grounds of the authority of Rome, not the validity of the story itself.

    By that time, traditions like veneration of relics and prayers to the saints were quite well established - even if we go by the earliest evidence we have of such practices.
    Yet we find no hint of the practices in the earliest literature. Again, it seems to me that it was a simple matter of "might made right", not historicity.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •