Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Venerable Bede]

The thing is, "Elohim," when used in the Torah, generally refers to a singular entity, at least judging by context. If the entity is a plural acting as one, he is so unified as to be practically Trinitarian.

"Makes one wonder" is, quite literally, all the evidence you have, and that is enough to support ancient aliens. No offense.

None taken.

Still, that only works in a Trinitarian model (which is something I don't agree with, since the very concept of the Trinity itself is more political in nature than anything, and has a whole whopping two verses in the Bible to back it up, one of which was entirely invented at a Synod/Council). By any other reasonable reading of the Bible, it means one god amongst many, which in the context of its use by Joshua, means the worship of Yahweh above all the other gods (presumably, Canaanite ones).

Are you saying the Bible says the Word/Wisdom of God, and the Spirit of God, are non-God entities?

[Sanctissima]

None taken.

Still, that only works in a Trinitarian model (which is something I don't agree with, since the very concept of the Trinity itself is more political in nature than anything, and has a whole whopping two verses in the Bible to back it up, one of which was entirely invented at a Synod/Council). By any other reasonable reading of the Bible, it means one god amongst many, which in the context of its use by Joshua, means the worship of Yahweh above all the other gods (presumably, Canaanite ones).

Are you saying the Bible says the Word/Wisdom of God, and the Spirit of God, are non-God entities?

I'm saying the verse that specifically mentions the Trinity is entirely invented. See 1 John 5:7:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This didn't exist until the Council of Nicaea, which just so happened to be the one where Arianism was declared a heresy. Convenient that the First Epistle of John should suddenly get an edit in favour of the Trinity at a time when that very subject was being debated, isn't it?

[Venerable Bede]

Are you saying the Bible says the Word/Wisdom of God, and the Spirit of God, are non-God entities?

I'm saying the verse that specifically mentions the Trinity is entirely invented. See 1 John 5:7:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This didn't exist until the Council of Nicaea, which just so happened to be the one where Arianism was declared a heresy. Convenient that the First Epistle of John should suddenly get an edit in favour of the Trinity at a time when that very subject was being debated, isn't it?

If this verse was added, it was hundreds of years after the Council of Nicaea. It wasn't used to support Trinitarianism in the Council (which is why most people think it was added). Furthermore, it was the Second Ecumenical Council that addressed the Spirit's Divinity.

Now, factoring out this verse, are you saying that the Wisdom/Word of God, and the Spirit of God, are understood as non-God entities in Scripture?

[Salus Maior]

So, after attending Protestant churches all my life, I'm going to go try to attend a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy tomorrow.

Going to be a bit of a different experience I'm sure

[Prosocial]

So, after attending Protestant churches all my life, I'm going to go try to attend a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy tomorrow.

Going to be a bit of a different experience I'm sure

Good luck! I had a really good experience going to a Ukrainian orthodox (eastern right catholic) church as a protestant(ish thing) for a while.

[Venerable Bede]

So, after attending Protestant churches all my life, I'm going to go try to attend a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy tomorrow.

Going to be a bit of a different experience I'm sure

Sure will be. It's like going back to ancient times.

[Salus Maior]

So, after attending Protestant churches all my life, I'm going to go try to attend a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy tomorrow.

Going to be a bit of a different experience I'm sure

Good luck! I had a really good experience going to a Ukrainian orthodox (eastern right catholic) church as a protestant(ish thing) for a while.

Yeah, I'm definitely in the "protestant-ish" category xD . Although the best descriptor for me would probably be "in-between denominations"

Thanks!

Edit: By the way, is there anything I should know going in? I only vaguely know what Orthodox services are like.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No I said the earliest Hebrews we had evidence of were polytheistic

They're frequently polytheistic in the Bible as well, that's a running theme in regard to God getting angry at them.

And archeological evidence confirms this

[Constantinopolis]

Cool! I live in the United States and have never so much as seen the inside of an Orthodox church, but I'm working on trying to bring something like the orthodox understanding of the atonement to my own cultural context.
[...]

[...]
I also live in the United States, and I do suggest you actually go to an Orthodox church sometime if you can. You aren't really going to grasp our theology and mindset otherwise, although you may grasp a basic idea of it.

I just wanted to jump in and say that Venerable Bede is right - you should definitely try to visit an Orthodox church if you can. There are more of them in the United States than you'd expect, although not evenly distributed across the country (some areas have a good number, others have none).

The Orthodoxy in America website is a really good Orthodox church locator. You should definitely use it if you're interested in visiting an Orthodox church but don't know where to find one.

When I look up various Christians throughout history, Wikipedia sometimes says that they are venerated in the RCC, EOC, the Anglican Church and the Lutheran Church.

How does Anglican and Lutheran veneration differ from the Catholic and Orthodox veneration?

Well, I can't fully answer the question, but one difference is that the Anglicans and Lutherans have stopped canonizing new saints since they broke off from the Roman Catholic Church - so they recognize the common Christian saints from before the Great Schism, and the Catholic saints from the 11th century to the 16th century, but no newer ones.

As I understand it, this situation is due to lack of agreement within Anglicanism and Lutheranism about what precisely makes someone a saint. Individual Anglicans (and perhaps Lutherans) sometimes venerate some post-16th century Christians as saints, but without the official endorsement of their respective Churches.

http://aleteia.org/blogs/deacon-greg-kandra/breaking-orthodox-patriarchate-moves-to-restore-female-deacons/?utm_campaign=english_page&utm_medium=aleteia_en&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1479399363
This is certainly interesting. I have a couple of questions for our Orthodox posters:
1) is this restoring the minor order of deaconess, or allowing women to be ordained to the Holy Diaconate?
2) how much will this inflame current intra-Orthodox tensions, and is it likely to lead to some sort of permanent break?
3) is there any context for this move that I missed?

This is extremely odd (and potentially shocking) news. I haven't heard it anywhere else, other than from your link. No Orthodox websites of news sources are saying anything about it, despite the potentially huge importance of such a move - if it actually goes ahead. Which is a big "if".

1) As I understand it, what happened is that the Holy Synod of Alexandria rather casually agreed in a routine meeting that "yeah, sure, I guess there is no reason we can't have deaconesses again" and decided to appoint a commission to study the issue. They have made no statements as to what they consider a "deaconess" to be (a member of a minor order or a woman ordained to the Holy Diaconate), and that will presumably be one of the things for the new commission to look into. The most likely outcome of all this is that the commission will make a report and then nothing will happen. That is also the outcome I hope for.

2) IF they actually end up ordaining women to the Holy Diaconate, I expect nothing less than a massive firestorm of controversy, immediate denunciations and anathemas from the more traditionalist patriarchates (including Moscow), and the breaking of communion between Alexandria and the majority of the Orthodox world. However, the Patriarch of Alexandria also knows that this is the likely outcome, which is why I greatly doubt that he would ever agree to actually ordain women to the Holy Diaconate. He is most likely just hoping that the issue of deaconesses will be permanently stuck in bureaucratic limbo as the commission "studies" it.

3) Prior to the 20th century, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria was the smallest of all Orthodox patriarchates, serving just a small number of native Egyptians (as the vast majority of Christian Egyptians are Coptic rather than Orthodox), and an equally small number of Greeks, Syrians and Palestinians living in Egypt. These numbers expanded somewhat in the early 20th century as more Orthodox immigrants moved to various other countries in Africa (the entire African continent is under the jurisdiction of Alexandria), but what really made a difference was the fact that, in the 1950s, a group of Kenyans without any previous connection to the Church expressed an interest in Orthodoxy. They were eventually received into the Orthodox Church, and, over the following decades, the Patriarchate of Alexandria developed significant missionary activity in sub-Saharan Africa. The numbers of African converts to Orthodoxy are very small compared to the numbers of converts to Protestantism or Catholicism, of course, but since the Patriarchate of Alexandria was so small to begin with, the African converts represent a significant (and growing) fraction of its flock. They will soon become the majority, if they haven't already.

So perhaps that has something to do with it. I have no way to be sure, however.

[Venerable Bede]

2) IF they actually end up ordaining women to the Holy Diaconate, I expect nothing less than a massive firestorm of controversy, immediate denunciations and anathemas from the more traditionalist patriarchates (including Moscow), and the breaking of communion between Alexandria and the majority of the Orthodox world.

Since there is nothing heretical about deaconesses, that would be a very strange thing to do.

[Coulee Croche]

2) IF they actually end up ordaining women to the Holy Diaconate, I expect nothing less than a massive firestorm of controversy, immediate denunciations and anathemas from the more traditionalist patriarchates (including Moscow), and the breaking of communion between Alexandria and the majority of the Orthodox world.

Since there is nothing heretical about deaconesses, that would be a very strange thing to do.

I think the big question, as in Catholicism, would be 'why?' Is there really a need for them, or is it to cater to the whims of western culture?

[Venerable Bede]

Since there is nothing heretical about deaconesses, that would be a very strange thing to do.

I think the big question, as in Catholicism, would be 'why?' Is there really a need for them, or is it to cater to the whims of western culture?

That's what they're inquiring into, if there is good reason for them. But let's not forget we had them for the first 1,000 years of the Church's history, so it's not like they're some sort of innovation.

[Constantinopolis]

I must interrupt the above discussion for one of my posts marking a Great Feast. Because today, November 21, is one of the lesser known (perhaps even the least known) of the Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church:

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple
(also called the Presentation of the Theotokos)



This day marks an event recorded in the Holy Tradition of the Church, and also mentioned in the extra-canonical 2nd century Christian text known as the Protoevangelium of James (the "Infancy Gospel" of James). Compared to the other Great Feasts that honour the Mother of God, this one is much more "recently" established, having originated possibly as late as the 6th century (although it could have originated earlier). Yes, you read that correctly: the sixth century. That would count as relatively late by Orthodox standards.

In any case, the narrative surrounding this Great Feast goes as follows: Mary was born to Joachim and Anna, an elderly childless couple who had fervently prayed for a child in their twilight years. God answered their prayers and enabled them to conceive despite their advanced age (mirroring Abraham and Sarah), and Mary was born. In gratitude, they promised to dedicate their daughter to the Lord's service. So, while Mary was still a very young child (three years old according to the Protoevangelium of James), they took her to the Temple in Jerusalem and left her in the care of their relative Zacharias, who was a priest at the Temple, so that she would be raised in piety and in the service of God. The Protoevangelium has a very poetic description of the child Mary walking away from her parents and towards the Temple by following the light of candles.

Needless to say, the historicity of the event is disputed. But the point of this Great Feast - alternatively called the "Presentation" of the Theotokos at the Temple - is highly symbolic. The Temple at Jerusalem was regarded as the dwelling place of God by Jews in the first century. Christians, however, regard Mary the Mother of God as the Living Temple, the one in whom God dwelt when He took material form, united himself to human nature, and became man. She is the new Holy of Holies, a Temple of flesh and blood far greater than the old Temple of stone. So, today's Great Feast exists precisely in order to mark this connection between the Temple and Mary.

The Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple represents her replacing the Temple, so that from now on, God will no longer dwell in halls of marble, but in the bodies and souls of human beings.

It is fitting that this Great Feast should be less than a month before Christmas, because in many ways it is a prelude to Christmas. By entering the Temple and replacing the Temple, Mary takes her first steps along the road that will lead her first to the Annunciation (celebrated, by necessity, in another part of the year), and eventually to Christmas. She is following the path of light that will transform her into the Theotokos, the Mother of God. And this theme of "taking the first steps along the path" is very beautifully represented by Mary walking into the Temple by following the light of candles.

Further reading: The article about the Entrance of the Theotokos on the website of the Orthodox Church in America, which includes a discourse from Saint Gregory Palamas regarding this occasion.

As is customary when I post to mark a Great Feast, here are some hymns for the occasion on YouTube (all in English):
Praises for the Entrance of the Theotokos
Apolytikion and kontakion for the Entrance of the Theotokos
Another kontakion for the Entrance of the Theotokos
Stichera for the Entrance of the Theotokos
Troparion for the Entrance of the Theotokos

Troparion:

Today is the preview of the good will of God,
Of the preaching of the salvation of mankind.
The Virgin appears in the temple of God,
In anticipation proclaiming Christ to all.
Let us rejoice and sing to her: Rejoice,
O Divine Fulfillment of the Creator's dispensation.

Kontakion:

The most pure Temple of the Savior;
The precious Chamber and Virgin;
The sacred Treasure of the glory of God,
Is presented today to the house of the Lord.
She brings with her the grace of the Spirit,
Therefore, the angels of God praise her:
"Truly this woman is the abode of heaven."

[Auristania]

Wow! I never heard of Presentation of BVM.

At first I was thinking this is like Candlemas Feb 02, Jesus is presented at the Temple 40 days after Dec 25. Mary's birthday is September-ish, so OK it's sorta like Candlemas but for Mary's birthday. This interpretation, a Westerner can understand.

But it's not Candlemas at all. Candlemas is Jesus being a baby and people prophesy, Anna, Nunc Dimitis etc. Here, baby!Mary does all the prophesying herself. Naah.

This is why I distrust Apocrypha. This is why I call Apocrypha fan-fic on the Bible.

[Luminesa]

Wow! I never heard of Presentation of BVM.

At first I was thinking this is like Candlemas Feb 02, Jesus is presented at the Temple 40 days after Dec 25. Mary's birthday is September-ish, so OK it's sorta like Candlemas but for Mary's birthday. This interpretation, a Westerner can understand.

But it's not Candlemas at all. Candlemas is Jesus being a baby and people prophesy, Anna, Nunc Dimitis etc. Here, baby!Mary does all the prophesying herself. Naah.

This is why I distrust Apocrypha. This is why I call Apocrypha fan-fic on the Bible.

...Ummm...even if you distrust the Apocrypha, Mary, being born without sin, would have most likely been consecrated to the Temple at a very early age because she was so special.

Then again I can't tell what Apocrypha you're referring to.

[Constantinopolis]

At first I was thinking this is like Candlemas Feb 02, Jesus is presented at the Temple 40 days after Dec 25. Mary's birthday is September-ish, so OK it's sorta like Candlemas but for Mary's birthday. This interpretation, a Westerner can understand.

That is more or less what this is, yes. Although the event celebrated today happens when Mary is 3 years old, so she is not really a baby any more and it's not strictly connected to her birthday per se. But it is very similar to the Presentation of the Lord (Candlemas).

But it's not Candlemas at all. Candlemas is Jesus being a baby and people prophesy, Anna, Nunc Dimitis etc. Here, baby!Mary does all the prophesying herself. Naah.

Wait, what? Mary doesn't say anything at all... She just walks into the Temple guided by candles. The only person who prophesies is the priest receiving her, who says: "The Lord has magnified your name in all generations. In you, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel." That's the only quote provided in the Protoevangelium of James for this event.

The interpretation of the event, as being a symbol of Mary becoming the Living Temple and replacing the old Temple of stone, is provided by later theologians.

[Constantinopolis]

2) IF they actually end up ordaining women to the Holy Diaconate, I expect nothing less than a massive firestorm of controversy, immediate denunciations and anathemas from the more traditionalist patriarchates (including Moscow), and the breaking of communion between Alexandria and the majority of the Orthodox world.

Since there is nothing heretical about deaconesses, that would be a very strange thing to do.

This is technically true. There is nothing wrong with female deacons per se. But you have to keep in mind the precedent set by other Christian Churches in recent times (cough cough Anglican Communion). Every Church that agreed to ordain female deacons ended up eventually ordaining female priests as well, and later even female bishops. Therefore, everyone would assume that female deacons are a prelude to female priests and bishops, and react accordingly.

But it's bizarre that this would happen in Africa of all places, which is a bastion of Christian traditionalism. That's why I'm very hopeful that nothing will come of it.

Somewhat-related note: I hope we get an African Patriarch of Alexandria before the Catholics get an African Pope of Rome. The race is on!

[The Alexanderians]

>when someone asks me theological questions
>when they can't separate their own beliefs from that of an unrelated group

In example:
"Tell me of Mary and her place in your dogma"
"She is second only to god and Christ himself, she is the most highly held purely mortal person in the church."
"I don't believe Jesus was divine he was just a man so that's wrong. She is second to another mortal."
*bangs head on desk*

[Auristania]

Wow! I never heard of Presentation of BVM.

At first I was thinking this is like Candlemas Feb 02, Jesus is presented at the Temple 40 days after Dec 25. Mary's birthday is September-ish, so OK it's sorta like Candlemas but for Mary's birthday. This interpretation, a Westerner can understand.

But it's not Candlemas at all. Candlemas is Jesus being a baby and people prophesy, Anna, Nunc Dimitis etc. Here, baby!Mary does all the prophesying herself. Naah.

This is why I distrust Apocrypha. This is why I call Apocrypha fan-fic on the Bible.

...Ummm...even if you distrust the Apocrypha, Mary, being born without sin, would have most likely been consecrated to the Temple at a very early age because she was so special.

Then again I can't tell what Apocrypha you're referring to.

Feb 02, 40 days after Dec 25, Jesus was presented at the Temple NOT because he was special but because that is how you celebrate babies. BVM was likewise presented at the Temple NOT because she was special but because she was a baby.

That is NOT my whinge. My whinge is that in the Gospel, Simeon, Anna etc prophesy over Little baby Jesus. But in the Apocryphal Gospel, Little baby Mary stands up on her hind legs and speaks the prophecy herself. Naah. I don't believe it. Balaam's talking donkey, yeah, that's in the Bible. But talking babies??? Just because apocrypha says so? Naah, I don't believe it.

This story is from the New Testament Apocrypha. Sees Const's post.

The icon shows regular BVM, but baby-sized rather than a regular baby. Fine, that's an artistic convention so we know who this is all about.

But to jump from an artistic convention to say the baby can talk? Naah! I cannot believe it.

[Auristania]

At first I was thinking this is like Candlemas Feb 02, Jesus is presented at the Temple 40 days after Dec 25. Mary's birthday is September-ish, so OK it's sorta like Candlemas but for Mary's birthday. This interpretation, a Westerner can understand.

That is more or less what this is, yes. Although the event celebrated today happens when Mary is 3 years old, so she is not really a baby any more and it's not strictly connected to her birthday per se. But it is very similar to the Presentation of the Lord (Candlemas).

But it's not Candlemas at all. Candlemas is Jesus being a baby and people prophesy, Anna, Nunc Dimitis etc. Here, baby!Mary does all the prophesying herself. Naah.

Wait, what? Mary doesn't say anything at all... She just walks into the Temple guided by candles. The only person who prophesies is the priest receiving her, who says: "The Lord has magnified your name in all generations. In you, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel." That's the only quote provided in the Protoevangelium of James for this event.

The interpretation of the event, as being a symbol of Mary becoming the Living Temple and replacing the old Temple of stone, is provided by later theologians.

I misunderstood

[Venerable Bede]

Since there is nothing heretical about deaconesses, that would be a very strange thing to do.

This is technically true. There is nothing wrong with female deacons per se. But you have to keep in mind the precedent set by other Christian Churches in recent times (cough cough Anglican Communion). Every Church that agreed to ordain female deacons ended up eventually ordaining female priests as well, and later even female bishops. Therefore, everyone would assume that female deacons are a prelude to female priests and bishops, and react accordingly.

But it's bizarre that this would happen in Africa of all places, which is a bastion of Christian traditionalism. That's why I'm very hopeful that nothing will come of it.

Somewhat-related note: I hope we get an African Patriarch of Alexandria before the Catholics get an African Pope of Rome. The race is on!

That's not grounds for anathema anymore that the New Calendar is, which also caused schisms using the same logic.

[Auristania]

That is more or less what this is, yes. Although the event celebrated today happens when Mary is 3 years old, so she is not really a baby any more and it's not strictly connected to her birthday per se. But it is very similar to the Presentation of the Lord (Candlemas).


Wait, what? Mary doesn't say anything at all... She just walks into the Temple guided by candles. The only person who prophesies is the priest receiving her, who says: "The Lord has magnified your name in all generations. In you, on the last of the days, the Lord will manifest His redemption to the sons of Israel." That's the only quote provided in the Protoevangelium of James for this event.

The interpretation of the event, as being a symbol of Mary becoming the Living Temple and replacing the old Temple of stone, is provided by later theologians.

I misunderstood

Somewhat-related note: I hope we get an African Patriarch of Alexandria before the Catholics get an African Pope of Rome. The race is on!

Egypt is in Africa. I guess you mean sub-Saharan African?

[Diopolis]

Since there is nothing heretical about deaconesses, that would be a very strange thing to do.

This is technically true. There is nothing wrong with female deacons per se. But you have to keep in mind the precedent set by other Christian Churches in recent times (cough cough Anglican Communion). Every Church that agreed to ordain female deacons ended up eventually ordaining female priests as well, and later even female bishops. Therefore, everyone would assume that female deacons are a prelude to female priests and bishops, and react accordingly.

But it's bizarre that this would happen in Africa of all places, which is a bastion of Christian traditionalism. That's why I'm very hopeful that nothing will come of it.

Somewhat-related note: I hope we get an African Patriarch of Alexandria before the Catholics get an African Pope of Rome. The race is on!

Our next pope is likely to be Sarah, so yall'd better be quick.
As for the thing which spun off this conversation, it sounds like it's even fishier than it sounded at first.

[Venerable Bede]

This is technically true. There is nothing wrong with female deacons per se. But you have to keep in mind the precedent set by other Christian Churches in recent times (cough cough Anglican Communion). Every Church that agreed to ordain female deacons ended up eventually ordaining female priests as well, and later even female bishops. Therefore, everyone would assume that female deacons are a prelude to female priests and bishops, and react accordingly.

But it's bizarre that this would happen in Africa of all places, which is a bastion of Christian traditionalism. That's why I'm very hopeful that nothing will come of it.

Somewhat-related note: I hope we get an African Patriarch of Alexandria before the Catholics get an African Pope of Rome. The race is on!

Our next pope is likely to be Sarah, so yall'd better be quick.
As for the thing which spun off this conversation, it sounds like it's even fishier than it sounded at first.

I really don't think the Cardinals appointed by Francis would elect Sarah.

[Diopolis]

Our next pope is likely to be Sarah, so yall'd better be quick.
As for the thing which spun off this conversation, it sounds like it's even fishier than it sounded at first.

I really don't think the Cardinals appointed by Francis would elect Sarah.

They don't actually control the college of cardinals, and probably won't for a while. The largest section of cardinals were appointed by Benedict.