|
DennyB
|
 |
« on: March 27, 2005, 05:55:35 PM » |
|
I was watching Dr. David Jereimiah today on TV,and He was doing a sermon on the Passage dealing with Jesus meeting the disciples on the road to Emmaus,and traditionally this has been interpreted by the church as a Eucharistic Passage,but anyway, He goes on to say that the reason the disciples recognized him was they saw the nail prints in his hands,when he broke the bread, Now are we to believe that the entire time Jesus was conversing that he somehow talked with them with his hands BEHIND HIS BACK or something to that effect,so that they would not see the nail scares in his hands.
I believe that the passage clearly states that they recognized Jesus in The breaking of the bread
I guess this is just another clear attemp by Protestants,to re-invent Christian teaching and Doctrine!!!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 27, 2005, 05:56:09 PM by DennyB »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mathetes
Sr. Member
 Offline
Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 160
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2005, 12:06:00 AM » |
|
DennyB, The two disciples were prevented from recognizing our risen Lord ( Luke 24: 16 ), who was appearing in another form to them ( Mark 16: 12 ). It's interesting that their eyes were opened when he broke bread and gave it to them ( Luke 24: 31 ). Nothing is said about the serving of wine, or the offering of our Lord's body and blood, however. How can we be sure that the breaking of bread was part of the Eucharist instead of part of a regular meal? A note in my Orthodox New Testament quotes Saint Gregory the Great as teaching: "They were not enlightened by God's commandments, but by their own actions, for it is written: 'For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified [ Rom. 2: 13 ].' Let anyone who wishes to understand what he has heard be quick to fulfill in action what he has already been able to understand. The Lord was not recognized when He was speaking, but He deigned to be recognized as He was being fed. Dearly beloved, love hospitality, love the works of charity, even as St. Paul said that by doing so, some have entertained angels [ Heb. 13: 2 ]." If Saint Gregory is right, we know two things: the disciples gave our Lord food, and St. Paul is the author of Hebrews.  In Christ, Mathetes |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).
"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
|
|
|
|
BrotherAidan
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2005, 11:18:11 AM » |
|
Denny B - remember, Protestants are reductionist by nature; once they threw out Holy Tradition and sought to rationalisitcally explain all the mysteries by rational human reasoning and logic, they painted themselves into a corner and ended up with a naturalistic explanation for things and a reductionist exegesis/hemeneutic (no typology, no allegory; only the "plain" meaning of the text to the original writers in the original languages. I received my theological education in a prominent evangelical seminary and remember the condescending attitude toward typology, even our Lord's seeing his resurrection pre-figured in Jonahs' residing in the belly of the great fish and the attitude that "we know better now than to interpret things that way - the Lord could, because he's the Lord and all, but he was also a first century Jew, limited by his culture" and I thought - HOW ARROGANT. I wish I would have thought to ask HOW we know better now, WHO says? But I either didn't think of it or was too intimidated by these "great professors." But I can see now that the Lord was preparing me for Orthodoxy even then.)
The liberal protestants explain EVERYTHING away; the evangelicals explain away anything that smacks of mystery to them (including the mysteries of the Lord's body and blood in the eucharist), while retaining a place for miracles that they deem "essential" for their theolgy; while charsamatics run around hysterically attributing EVERYTHING to miracle.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 31, 2005, 11:24:50 AM by BrotherAiden »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Doubting Thomas
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2005, 11:31:50 AM » |
|
The liberal protestants explain EVERYTHING away; the evangelicals explain away anything that smacks of mystery to them (including the mysteries of the Lord's body and blood in the eucharist), while retaining a place for miracles that they deem "essential" for their theolgy; while charsamatics run around hysterically attributing EVERYTHING to miracle.
That's a pretty good summary.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
|
|
|
|
BrotherAidan
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2005, 11:38:21 AM » |
|
mathetes
I like what you wrote about St. Paul writing Hebrews. I always beleived that.
Again, even so-called conservative evangelicals, almost universally reject Pauline authorship of Hebrews.
Why? - the language and some of the terminolgy are different.
How stupid! If one were to examine things I have written even on these boards, using the standards of egghead academics, there would be differences due to my mood, how busy I am, the nature of the topic, etc. So one MUST conclude that there are several BrotherAidenic writers. The bulk of the posts are by the authentic Aiden, but some of the later posts were obviously added by a later disciple of Aiden, or even a later generation influenced by the "school of Aiden."
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it. But Bible "scholars" say this kind of stuff all the time with a straight face!
It even gets more ridiculous if one examined all my writings - what I write to my wife and kids, to relatives and friends, in reports and letters at work, in essays for teaching a church school class. One could arrive at a veritiable dozen or so different writers, based on differences of common vocabulary, ways of formulating ideas, use of certain idioms, phraseology, etc.
Here here to St. Gregory! Paul indeed wrote Hebrews!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BrotherAidan
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2005, 11:39:16 AM » |
|
Doubting T - thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DennyB
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2005, 09:48:32 PM » |
|
Denny B - remember, Protestants are reductionist by nature; once they threw out Holy Tradition and sought to rationalisitcally explain all the mysteries by rational human reasoning and logic, they painted themselves into a corner and ended up with a naturalistic explanation for things and a reductionist exegesis/hemeneutic (no typology, no allegory; only the "plain" meaning of the text to the original writers in the original languages. I received my theological education in a prominent evangelical seminary and remember the condescending attitude toward typology, even our Lord's seeing his resurrection pre-figured in Jonahs' residing in the belly of the great fish and the attitude that "we know better now than to interpret things that way - the Lord could, because he's the Lord and all, but he was also a first century Jew, limited by his culture" and I thought - HOW ARROGANT. I wish I would have thought to ask HOW we know better now, WHO says? But I either didn't think of it or was too intimidated by these "great professors." But I can see now that the Lord was preparing me for Orthodoxy even then.)
The liberal protestants explain EVERYTHING away; the evangelicals explain away anything that smacks of mystery to them (including the mysteries of the Lord's body and blood in the eucharist), while retaining a place for miracles that they deem "essential" for their theolgy; while charsamatics run around hysterically attributing EVERYTHING to miracle.
Thanks for the wonderful insight!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BrotherAidan
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2005, 04:57:11 PM » |
|
DB
You are welcome
Continue to attend Liturgy and vespers; does your parish give out a calendar witht eh recommencded daily scripture readings? That's really helpful too. Maybe get Anthony Coniaris' one volume intro to the Philokalia (a collection of the sayings of the Church Fathers)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DennyB
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2005, 11:30:37 PM » |
|
BA
I am currently attending liturgy a Reformed Episcopal Church,I am drawn to the Orthodox Faith,I listen to liturgical Orthodox Music,Rachmaninov etc.,all the time so I do get a glimse of what Vespers is like,Thanks
DB
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BrotherAidan
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2005, 10:48:12 AM » |
|
May God bless you on your journey.
Have you ever attended an Orthodox Church? If not, you should allow yourself the experience. The best way to really learn about Orthodoxy is to "come and see" (as Phillip told Nathaniel) our worship in one of our services.
But I will "warn" you: once you begin down that road, there is usually no turning back. You seem to be genuine in your search - just the kind of person who eventually becomes Orthodox!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Philokalia
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat
Sr. Member
Offline
Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 173
Hail Mary Full of Grace
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2005, 12:31:07 PM » |
|
BA
I am currently attending liturgy a Reformed Episcopal Church,I am drawn to the Orthodox Faith,I listen to liturgical Orthodox Music,Rachmaninov etc.,all the time so I do get a glimse of what Vespers is like,Thanks
DB
What is it about the Orthodox faith that attracts you? The liturgy is wonderful certainly but that cannot really be the only basis for a lively faith. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society.
|
|
|
|
