X
-
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.
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?
Scripture IS tradition. You appear to reject part of it here - namely, teachings passed on by mouth, to which it attests.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostLet'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.
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?
Scripture IS tradition.
You appear to reject part of it here - namely, teachings passed on by mouth, to which it attests.That's what
- She
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
Comment
-
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 unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . 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 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostBut, 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.
How so? A sexless marriage was shameful from what I can tell.
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.
An unconsummated relationship was shameful. In Jewish thought, it would have been against Torah to disobey the command to be fruitful and multiply.
Uh, no it didn't make her a literal temple.
Would you tell God no when he commanded us to be fruitful and multiply?
But not all traditions are scripture.
More like later additions that originated well after the canon of scripture was closedVeritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostNick 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.
Based on....?
Argument from silence. You have zero evidence that they displaced any other tradition.
You mean, in Jewish thought not recorded until well after the time in question. Another argument from silence.
Citing Exodus 21:10
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
She contained God in the flesh, so yes, it did.
You're taking that rather absolutely. If that were an absolute command, then widows and widowers would be obliged to remarry.
I never said they were.
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.That's what
- She
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
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 05-01-2024, 09:43 PM
|
1 response
29 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-02-2024, 08:29 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
28 responses
196 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
15 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM |
Comment