Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
41
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by Iconodule on Yesterday at 07:49:58 PM »
So you don’t actually have a point. Thanks for clearing that up.
42
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by LBK on Yesterday at 07:48:13 PM »
And the idea that an Okd Testament image can only signify one thing is a (very erroneous) theologoumenon, one not supported in hymns or any other authoritative source.

Never have I said that OT images only have one meaning. Hymns indeed do express this multiplicity, where it concurs with the consensus patrum.

The absence of the meaning that angels represent Jacob's Ladder in Orthodox hymns and icons means we must be wary in accepting this idea as in keeping with Orthodox thought. At best, it is a theologoumenon.

The Mother of God was not an angel. She is greater in honor and more glorious than them.
43
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by Iconodule on Yesterday at 07:37:31 PM »
And the idea that an Okd Testament image can only signify one thing is a (very erroneous) theologoumenon, one not supported in hymns or any other authoritative source.
44
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by LBK on Yesterday at 07:09:02 PM »
You posted this in the OP:

Another new book from SVS Press:

Quote

—The subjects of the devotional triptych The Friend of the Bridegroom, The Burning Bush, and Jacob’s Ladder—St John the Forerunner, the Mother of God, and the angels, respectively—each have a chapter or more devoted to them, along with an analysis of the trilogy as a whole.


https://www.svspress.com/the-theology-of-sergius-bulgakov/

Hymnography and iconography represent and express what the entire Church believes and teaches. It does not deal with theologoumena.
45
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by Iconodule on Yesterday at 06:49:17 PM »
Jacob's Ladder is a prefiguration of the Mother of God, not a symbol of the angels. There are plenty of liturgical references to this.

As with most Old Testament visions, Jacob's Ladder has been given many different interpretations in the Fathers of the Church.

The views of individual Fathers are all very well, but when the liturgical testimony speaks of the Mother of God, and never the angels, as Jacob's Ladder, this must give us reason to pause.

No. A given image can always signify more than one thing. That’s basic not only to Orthodox hymnography and scriptural exegesis but to poetics in general. If you don’t understand poetry you can’t understand hymnography either. Now have you actually read the book or are you just going to keep making silly points based solely on the title?
46
Josephus gives a moral lesson on how prophecy can turn a good man to heed warnings to avoid a bad prophecied fate, and then seems to contradict this idea in a way by saying that it's a false hope that one can escape a bad fate by foreknowing it:
Quote
Now, since there befell Achab the fate spoken of by the two prophets, we ought to acknowledge the greatness of the Deity and everywhere honour and reverence Him, nor should we think the things which are said to flatter us or please us more worthy of belief than the truth, but should realize that nothing is more beneficial than prophecy and the foreknowledge which it gives, for in this way God enables us to know what to guard against. And further, with the king's history before our eyes, it behoves us to reflect on the power of Fate, and see that not even with foreknowledge is it possible to escape it, for it secretly enters the souls of men and flatters them with fair hopes, and by means of these it leads them on to the point where it can overcome them.

Maybe the answer to this mystery is repentance. If the bad fate is imposed as a penalty, then the person can repent to avoid the bad fate, like Nineveh repenting on hearing Jonah's prophecy. But a person cannot think that he can avoid the bad fate simply by foreknowing it and trying to avoid it by means that don't address the root cause, ie the means of repentance.

Josephus appears to infer the story of the chariot of fire when talking about Elijah's death:
Quote
"Now about that time Elijah disappeared (2 Kings ii. 1.) from among men, and to this day no one knows his end.'' He left behind him a disciple EUsha, as we have already related.** However, concerning Elijah and Enoch,* who lived before the Flood, it is WTitten in the sacred books that they became invisible, and no one knows of their death."
I read a scholarly opinion however, that Elijah's chariot didn't deliver ELijah to heaven for ages, but rather than it just transported him via heaven to another location and that Elijah shows up as still alive on earth within one's normal lifespan of years at another later passage. What do you think?

This story of how Ahab's sons were killed is intense. Elisha favored Jehu as king, who killed king Joram, who had been Ahab's successor:
Quote
Now Achab had seventy*- sons, who were being brought up in Samaria, and Jehu sent two letters, one to their tutors, and the other to the magistrates of Samaria, telling them to appoint the bravest of Achab's sons as king, for, he said, they had an abundance of chariots, horses, arms, soldiers and fortified cities," and, when they had done this, to take vengeance for their master's death. This he wTote because he wished to test the feelings of the Samarians toward himself. But, when they read the letters, the magistrates and the tutors were terrified and, reflecting that they could do nothing against one who had overcome two very great kings, they wrote back, agreeing to have him for their master and to do whatever he commanded. He thereupon wrote back, commanding them to obey him and to cut off the heads of Achab's sons and send them to him. So the magistrates summoned the sons' tutors and ordered them to kill them'' and cut off their heads and send them to Jehu. And they did so, showing no mercy at all, and, putting their heads in woven baskets," sent them off to Jezarela.
...
He[Jehu] also asked them[the public] to recognize that all these things had happened to Achab's family, in accordance with God's prophecy and his house had perished, just as Elijah had foretold.

That's 70 sons' heads in woven baskets, cut off by their magistrates and tutors.

Next, Jehu kills the priests of Baal, destroys the temple of Baal, and then lets the Israelites bow down before Jeroboam's two golden heifers (Book 9, Chapter VI).
It seems a little contradictory, although I can see that the heifers are not interpreted as bad as worshiping Baal.

In Book IX, Josephus describes the killing of the prophet Zechariah, the son of the priest Jodas, by king Joas in the Temple:
Quote
Moreover the king even ordered Zacharias," the son of the high priest Jodas, to be stoned to death in the temple, unmindful of the good works of his father, because, when God appointed him to prophesy, he stood in the midst of the people and counselled both them and the king to do right, and warned them that they would suffer heavy punishment if they disobeyed. As he died, however, Zacharias made God the witness and judge of what he had suffered in being so cruelly and violently put to death in return for his good counsel and for all that his father had done for Joas.
This recalls Jesus' warning to the pharisees, which mentioned Zechariah's death in the Temple:
Quote
Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” (Matthew 23)
This could be the same Zechariah in both passages, if "son of" can refer to grandsons, great-grandsons, etc.
47
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by LBK on Yesterday at 06:14:02 PM »
Jacob's Ladder is a prefiguration of the Mother of God, not a symbol of the angels. There are plenty of liturgical references to this.

As with most Old Testament visions, Jacob's Ladder has been given many different interpretations in the Fathers of the Church.

The views of individual Fathers are all very well, but when the liturgical testimony speaks of the Mother of God, and never the angels, as Jacob's Ladder, this must give us reason to pause.
48
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by Iconodule on Yesterday at 05:45:55 PM »
Jacob's Ladder is a prefiguration of the Mother of God, not a symbol of the angels. There are plenty of liturgical references to this.

As with most Old Testament visions, Jacob's Ladder has been given many different interpretations in the Fathers of the Church.
49
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by LBK on Yesterday at 05:41:18 PM »
Jacob's Ladder is a prefiguration of the Mother of God, not a symbol of the angels. There are plenty of liturgical references to this.
50
My view is the faction of those trying to follow Cyril & accepted Chalcedon, were not familiar enough with the 12 chapters to find fault with Ibas letter in real time at 451. Which is normal, because most Christians in the empire at the time were not familiar with it. I also don't think they had a thorough understanding of Cyril's writings at this time, because they treated 433 like it was something Cyril produced & seemed to view it to be more of a authority than the 12 chapters/Cyril's final writings from 438-444.The origin of the formula of reunion(433) was produced by the Antiochians & Cyril simply endorsed it.

So most likely the judgement they are making here is based on the limited information in front of them. Dioscorus was the man in the room at the time, with the most experience in combating Nestorius et al., Remember Dioscorus  also personally attended Ephesus 431 with Cyril. This is why I think Anatolius was able to make both statement A and statement B

Statement A
Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said: "It was not because of the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposed because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time and did not come.”

Statement B
Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said, “the reading of all the accompanying material prove the most devout Ibas innocent of the accusations brought against him.”

While Anatolius was familiar with Dioscorus, it seems like Anatolius wasn't thoroughly familiar enough with the 12 chapters to see fault in Ibas letter at the time.

As for the other faction trying to follow Theodoret,Ibas et al at the time, that's another story.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »