Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
51
Reviews / Re: The Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Yesterday at 03:30:31 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.

The irony here is that you are opposing a study of a triptych of icons.
52
Josephus writes:
Quote
The kingdom then came to his son Achaz,*^ who in acting most impiously toward God and violating his country's laws imitated the kings of Israel, for he set up altars in Jerusalem and sacrificed on them to idols,* to which he even offered his own son as a whole burnt-offering according to the Canaanite custom, and he committed other offences similar to these.
...
[Later...]But the king of Jerusalem, on learning that the Syrians had returned home, and thinking himself a match for the king of Israel, led out his force against him and, after joining battle, was defeated because of the anger which God felt at his many great impieties.

Book IX
It's ironic - some ancient pagans killed their sons as sacrifices, desiring to receive the gods' blessings, but in this case the sacrifice of Achaz's son had the opposite effect.

That's not irony, that's reality.

Quote
Was "Syria" part of "Assyria" or vice verse, or were they the same people?

The use of the two terms is fairly arbitrary thru history and by different groups. As Volnutt pointed out, both describe a large Semitic population that had great power in trade and governance. However, it seems we now generally (possibly following the biblical protocol) use "Syria" to refer to the eras or geographies in which their center of power was in cities such as modern Damascus just north of Israel, and use "Assyria" to refer to the eras or geographies in which their center of power was Nineveh.
53
Religious Topics / Re: Why I don't believe in God anymore.
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Yesterday at 03:17:29 PM »
I'm setting them in opposition because both theology and history are totally separate domains. There is no overlap. What theology is doing is profoundly different than history.

This is the case only according to such special definitions as you cling to, definitions, such as that history comprises no fact but only narrative, that are meaningless to Christians and others of sincere will. For Christians, history and theology are complementary, and, for that matter, in no case is there a "totally separate domain" -- except in the case of truth vs. lies, God vs. the world, justice vs. evil. Theology and history, and every other legitimate theoria, are doors to the same room.

Quote
I'm resisting a tendency to render the Incarnation as merely a historical occurrence rather than being filled with a deep wonder at the absolute paradox of our faith.

Again you invent a pernicious and unnecessary opposition. There is nothing "mere" about the human past, and certainly nothing about our having a past that precludes any wonder at God's work with man.

Quote
Christ cannot be a historical person as we read in history books. He must by his very person go beyond it.

If Christ is not real, then he is not Christ. Shame on your posts, that they will not stop subtly babbling these false oppositions, these gratuitous ruptures of the faith.

Quote
I can fully embrace the paradox and reject any attempts to rationally make sense of it. Only by the Orthodox Faith can one come to know him as he is, the same yesterday, today and forever.

I'll ignore your summing platitude as no summation at all of your posts' real contents, and ask what is this "paradox" you worship? If it requires you to call the Evangelists frauds, if it requires you to discern the Incarnation as having no place or time, then it is not a paradox but some species of stubborn self-lobotomization.

But let's cut to the chase, Mr. S. Let's be perfectly clear. The motivations for thinking such as yours (quite popular thinking, by the way, in progressive religious circles -- sometimes I think you just paraphrase the books you've read) are perfectly clear and simple. But first a brief history lesson. The "need" to declare the Gospels fraudulent began in the Enlightenment when scientific minds noticed with a start that the Gospels include accounts of miracles. The scholarly criticism is continuous from there. Now, for the Christian or other sincere mind, it is easy to grant that where the Son of God were to appear, there could -- no, would be miracles. And so the subsequent centuries of hubbub seem quite unnecessary. But consider well: The hubbub was necessary to the motives that gave birth to it. The motives to join in the work of a zeitgeist; of synergy with the spirit of the times: which was -- and is -- to build a new world of mind from which the old world of mind must be cut out.

And so it is today with those who write books or posts like yours. The motive is plain, if beneath the surface -- it is to join in the work of science and progress; or, by this late time of history, to avoid the shame of not joining. The writer or poster wishes to be at ease among his secular fellows; if he is a professional scholar, he wishes to rise in his job -- or perhaps even just to keep it. The paradox you describe -- the tension, as Emergents are fond of denominating it -- is thus nothing else than a strain between two incompatible sets of motivations, probably incarnated in sets of coworkers and friends. It is a personal stress abstracted. "How long will ye halt between two opinions?" "Friendship of the world is enmity with God." "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." "Choose you this day whom ye will serve." You see, the old world of mind already knew, predicted, and diagnosed the unholy "paradox."

So, yes, there are two "totally separate domains" which an attempt to synthesize will indeed bear hideously aborted fruit, and this fact does certainly greatly impinge on the matter of the thread, but these domains are not history vs. theology but God vs. rebellion.
54
Josephus writes:
Quote
The kingdom then came to his son Achaz,*^ who in acting most impiously toward God and violating his country's laws imitated the kings of Israel, for he set up altars in Jerusalem and sacrificed on them to idols,* to which he even offered his own son as a whole burnt-offering according to the Canaanite custom, and he committed other offences similar to these.
...
[Later...]But the king of Jerusalem, on learning that the Syrians had returned home, and thinking himself a match for the king of Israel, led out his force against him and, after joining battle, was defeated because of the anger which God felt at his many great impieties.

Book IX
It's ironic - some ancient pagans killed their sons as sacrifices, desiring to receive the gods' blessings, but in this case the sacrifice of Achaz's son had the opposite effect.

Josephus keeps describing the northern Israelites' center as Samaria. It makes me think that the Samaritans, which kept only the Torah and not the later books, are likely remnants of the 10 "Lost Tribes" of northern Israel.

This part is alittle confusing for me:
Quote
But King Achaz, after suffering this defeat at the hands of the Israelites, sent to Thaglathphallasares, the king of Assyria, asking him to give aid as an ally in the war against the Israelites, the Syrians and Damascenes, and promising to give him much money ; he also sent him splendid gifts. And so, after the envoys had come to him, he went to the help of Achaz, and, marching against the Syrians, ravaged their country, took Damascus by storm, and killed their king Arases.
Was "Syria" part of "Assyria" or vice verse, or were they the same people?

I think they were the same people ethnically but split into various fluctuating and coalescing and squabbling tribes and factions over the centuries. Even today, its debated to what extent modern Syrians are related to the ancient Assyrians (though of course current nationalist concerns want them to be).

That's just off the top of my head, though.
55
Other Topics / Re: Thanksgiving 2017
« Last post by biro on Yesterday at 03:09:05 PM »
Thank you.
56
Convert Issues / Re: Icon corners
« Last post by LivenotoneviL on Yesterday at 02:58:32 PM »
This is mine - it still has bit of work to do (getting a new cover that is more dignified, adding more icons, especially near the candles, getting new books, etc.), but for where I am money wise, I think it's okay.



Full size:
http://image.ibb.co/cZiKdR/IMG_0068.jpg

The fabric has been straightened out since I took this picture (when I reset it up).

I picked out Saint Matthew (which is the my names Saint) and Saint Michael (who was my Roman Catholic Confirmation name and whom I think still has significance to me) as the two Saints underneath Christ and the Theotokos.

There are icons over the candle holders, which are that of "Our Lady and Jerusalem" and the Holy Family (which, I know isn't really proper, but is it true or false?)

I also organized it so everyone is facing towards the Crucifixion. I think that this is the Roman Catholic coming out of me though.
57
Society can unite to end the apocolypse? I think that is wrong

58
Josephus writes:
Quote
The kingdom then came to his son Achaz,*^ who in acting most impiously toward God and violating his country's laws imitated the kings of Israel, for he set up altars in Jerusalem and sacrificed on them to idols,* to which he even offered his own son as a whole burnt-offering according to the Canaanite custom, and he committed other offences similar to these.
...
[Later...]But the king of Jerusalem, on learning that the Syrians had returned home, and thinking himself a match for the king of Israel, led out his force against him and, after joining battle, was defeated because of the anger which God felt at his many great impieties.

Book IX
It's ironic - some ancient pagans killed their sons as sacrifices, desiring to receive the gods' blessings, but in this case the sacrifice of Achaz's son had the opposite effect.

Josephus keeps describing the northern Israelites' center as Samaria. It makes me think that the Samaritans, which kept only the Torah and not the later books, are likely remnants of the 10 "Lost Tribes" of northern Israel.

This part is alittle confusing for me:
Quote
But King Achaz, after suffering this defeat at the hands of the Israelites, sent to Thaglathphallasares, the king of Assyria, asking him to give aid as an ally in the war against the Israelites, the Syrians and Damascenes, and promising to give him much money ; he also sent him splendid gifts. And so, after the envoys had come to him, he went to the help of Achaz, and, marching against the Syrians, ravaged their country, took Damascus by storm, and killed their king Arases.
Was "Syria" part of "Assyria" or vice verse, or were they the same people?
59
Quote
It seems a little contradictory, although I can see that the heifers are not interpreted as bad as worshiping Baal.

Aaron witnesses the pillar of fire and the parting of the Red Sea and then builds the Golden Calf. It happens. Maybe Jehu rationalized it as the calves being "representations" of Yahweh like Aaron might have (Exodus 32:5). He was pretty clearly unstable.

I think it was pragmatism, altho it's also possible Jehu himself felt the way the heifer-"worshippers" did. On the one hand, you have a large section of the populace that wants to worship Baal as their powerful neighbors do. On the other hand, you have a large section that wants to worship Jehovah, via these calves, a system their founder set up so there wouldn't have to be the pilgrimage to (in his day) hostile Jerusalem. While Jehu clearly wasn't afraid to attempt the impossible, as his overthrow of a dynasty and a whole caste of priests proves, he was also a man with pragmatic concerns. Even Jehu isn't going to risk just annihilating his people.
60
Convert Issues / Re: Annoyed with Inconsistency of Orthodoxy?
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Yesterday at 02:39:01 PM »
Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »