JNORM888 SAID:
One of the ways we know that a teaching is most likely a teaching that was held everywhere(all regions of the Church) is when it doesn't cause a ripple in the Faith. PM caused a fued in Alexandria and Rome. The doctrine of the Trinity did not. The early ripples we see in regards to the issue of God are from Marcian, Noetus, Praxeas, and Arius, and maybe a few others.
People who teach heretical stuff do stick out like sore thumbs.
What I am saying is that we can trust them for if one got it wrong, then the others who heard the same apostle would of corrected the one who miss-understood. And if the person refused to change, then it would of caused a ripple in the Faith.
Back to Apostolic tradition:__Now you are saying that only a few were able to listen to an Apostle. That is wrong. Anyone in the same Church plant was able to hear the same Apostle. Now it is true that for the ones who wrote, we only have a few that sat at an Apostles feet. And for those that wrote, if their letters were passed around and copied from Church to Church (and region to region) then the other churches had a chance to check out the doctrinal teaching of those who wrote, and if they were teaching something that didn't line up with the Apostolic tradition of their region, then it would of caused a ripple in the Faith.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/heretical-apostolic-succession.html#396197501474127944
Jnorm has just given us the ripple argument for Clementine ornithology. To my knowledge, Clement’s avian proof for the Resurrection didn’t generate any ripples. Didn’t stick out like a sore thumb.
So the immortality of the phoenix must go all the way back to the apostles. After all, if Clement misunderstood what an apostle was saying about the phoenix, other listeners or other churches would have corrected him. And if he didn’t recant, that would have caused a ripple. He would stick out like a sore thumb. Hence, Clementine ornithology figures in the deposit of faith. He who refuses to profess the immortality of the phoenix is anathema.
Clement's Christology, not ornithology. :-) The Phoenix as a type of Christ and His Glorious Resurrection. Early Christians made use of whatever redeamable feature that they could find in the religions of the other peoples in the middle of whom they lived to express and illustrate the Christian teaching to them (just as they did with the Jews and their Old Testament: they extrapolated from there). The reality towards which the type points is not dependant on the existance or reality of the type itself.
ReplyDelete-- The Jews believed in the Two Trees in the Garden; the Gentiles in the World-Tree (take 'Iggdrasil' in Norse mythology, for instance): both of these sets were types or prefigurations of the Holy Cross.
-- The Jews have a lore concerning Noah splitting Adam's earthly remains to his three sons: the head he gives to Sem, as a sign of the wisdom for which his descendants are known until today; the torso to Japheth, as a sign of the wordly power his descendants would become famous for; and the feet to Ham, as a sign of Noah's future curse on his descendants, explaining the slavery for which they would become known.
-- The Hindus have another similar myth: from Brahmas head came the priests and kings; from his arms the military; from his trunk the traders; and from the dust that went off his feet the 'pariah'.
-- St. Paul speaks of the Church being the Body of Christ, with members alluding to different functions within this very same Body; he talks about Christ being the Head, etc.
-- All of these themes speak about the corporal and joint nature of humanity and society in general.
The question here everywhere is neither botanical, nor zoological, but Christological. Christ came and gave us a New Revelation, the New Testament. He was the very Word of God that spoke to and through the Spirit-filled Prophets of the Old Testament. And He never forsake the Gentiles either: think of our common ancestry in Adam, the first man; think of Balaam, Naaman, the widow from the Sarepta in Sidon, Jonah's mission to those in Nineveh, Christ's words in Luke 4:24-27, and St. Paul's words in Romans 2:14-16, etc.
And just think of the post-figuration of Eve and the Serpent when the women threw the millstone upon the head of that one guy during the siege of her city and he died!
ReplyDeleteI mean, that's obviously Christological too!
What is post-figuration? And in excatly what city did Eve dwell?
ReplyDeleteThe Jews have a lore concerning Noah splitting Adam's earthly remains to his three sons: the head he gives to Sem, as a sign of the wisdom for which his descendants are known until today; the torso to Japheth, as a sign of the wordly power his descendants would become famous for; and the feet to Ham, as a sign of Noah's future curse on his descendants, explaining the slavery for which they would become known.
ReplyDeletePaul specifically prohibits us from entertaining Jewish myths, etc.
- The Jews believed in the Two Trees in the Garden; the Gentiles in the World-Tree (take 'Iggdrasil' in Norse mythology, for instance): both of these sets were types or prefigurations of the Holy Cross.
1. It's more likely that the Two Trees in the Garden are types of the Ark of the Covenant. See Beale, The Church and the World's Mission.
Either way, that's biblical typology.
2. Did the World Tree "prefigure" the cross?
Now you're moving into pagan mythology to find "types." Where's the supporting argument?
The World tree is a single tree. The cross was made from wood.
The World Tree linked and sheltered all the worlds. Is that what the cross does?
Three wells lie at its base: the Well of Wisdom (Mímisbrunnr), guarded by Mimir; the Well of Fate (Urdarbrunnr), guarded by the Norns; and the Hvergelmir (Roaring Kettle), the source of many rivers. Is descriptive of the cross too?
This is the sort of thing you get when you talk all up out of your head.
Of course, Biblical typology does depend on the reality of both type and antitype.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I look forward to lvka's typological/christological interpretation of the Wizard of Oz.
Paul specifically prohibits us from entertaining Jewish myths, etc.
ReplyDeleteLike the ones about the chair of Moses, Jannes and Jambres, those from the book of Enoch and the assumption of Moses that Jesus, he and Jude sometimes make use of? :-)
I think the "fables" that he's refering to are the doctrines of the Judaizers (1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14).
I only told You the obvious: that the Fathers, even the very Early ones [and I want to thank You whole-heartedly here for providing these marvelous first-century Clementine quotes], used such non-Biblical, nonJewish, nonScriptural typologies. Now You're also curious as to "why" they even used it/them in the first place. (Is the little Eve inside You trying to reach out and grab the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge perhaps?). >:)
"The 'why': this is what separates us ... from them". (The Matrix). :-)
I already gave You the answer: communication. Well, ... this and the belief in a Cosmic Christ and the transcendental, trans-cultural, trans-national, trans-racial, universal message that Christianity had to offer to the whole world: the Ecumene.
I had no ideea that there were three wells at the roots of Igdrasil: this makes the parallelism to the four rivers of Paradise all the more apparent. The fact that one of them is the well of wisdom is very helpful (Tree of Knowledge). The fact that the third is responsible for the spring of many rivers is also encouraging, strengthening what I said before about the four rivers. The three wells are the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Source of all Life; and the four rivers are the Four Holy Gospels, which have in them the key to inheriting Eternal Life.
Yes, the fact that it's a tree is of a primary importance, since that's the Hebraism for the Cross. (Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39; Galatians 3:13).
The World Tree linked and sheltered all the worlds. Is that what the cross does?
Yes. The Cross sustains the entire Universe by the Life-giving Sacrifice and death-destroying death of the One that died on it to rise on the third day: without it, we would've perished long ago. [Christ resurrected with an ever-lasting Life, being thus made Himself the First-fruits of those that sleep and the First-born from the dead: the former wood of death thus now becomes the true Tree of Life].
The Two Trees, centered and set-apart from all the rest, also represent the Two Divine Persons: the hypostatic Wisdom of God [Christ] by the Tree of Knowledge, and the hypostatic Life of God [the Holy Ghost] by the Tree of Life.
The World Tree linked and sheltered all the worlds. Is that what the cross does?
ReplyDeleteYes. It linked once again earth to Heaven and God with man, being the ultimate or supreme proof of the all-unifying, all-linking, all-forgiving Love of the kinetic Creator that dies embracing even those that hated Him the most, to restore His fallen and ungrateful creation once again unto Himself.
The World Tree *linked* and sheltered all the worlds. Is that what the cross does?
ReplyDeleteYes. The four rivers of Paradise flowing to the four corners of the world and the four arms of the Cross, unifying all men from all four cardinal directions, and gathering humanity in its entirety to Christ Who was pierced on it.
What I said was in regard to a certain topic. You guys like to play games, and I'm tired of playing it with you.
ReplyDeleteStick to the original topic of John Calvin and friends.
JNORM888
Yes. It linked once again earth to Heaven and God with man, being the ultimate or supreme proof of the all-unifying, all-linking, all-forgiving Love of the kinetic Creator that dies embracing even those that hated Him the most, to restore His fallen and ungrateful creation once again unto Himself.
ReplyDeleteThat's not what the World-Tree does. The World-Tree supported the whole universe. It's a creation myth, not a cosmological myth. Your analogy is a dismal failure. The Cross does not hold together nine worlds. Jesus did not sacrifice anything in order to gain wisdom like Odin. You're simply selecting items from a myth that you now admit you don't know much about in order to indulge your fantasies.
What you're doing is more akin to the musings of Joseph Campbell than anything in the Bible.
I think the "fables" that he's refering to are the doctrines of the Judaizers (1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14). There's more to it than that.
The Two Trees, centered and set-apart from all the rest, also represent the Two Divine Persons: the hypostatic Wisdom of God [Christ] by the Tree of Knowledge, and the hypostatic Life of God [the Holy Ghost] by the Tree of Life.
This can't be exegeted from the text of Scripture. That's because you're talking all up out of your head.
Like the ones about the chair of Moses, Jannes and Jambres, those from the book of Enoch and the assumption of Moses that Jesus, he and Jude sometimes make use of? :-)
You are not an Apostle writing under the inspiration of the Spirit.
The chair of Moses refers to the teaching office and the authority of Moses that the religous leadership claimed for themselves, not a mythical story.
Jannes and Jambres are the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses according to Jewish tradition. So, Enoch alludes to the OT and then simply gives a couple of names, because his audience like sectarian Jewish lit. So, ultimately,
Jude is merely illustrating a point via literary allusion.
FYI: The allusion is not to the Assumption of Moses, but the Testament of Moses. Cf. R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church, chap. 5.
What Jude does is there not the same as calling on a complete myth and drawing Christological analogies that can't be exegeted from Scripture and have no license from it - for example Norse mythology about the cosmology of the universe.
I only told You the obvious: that the Fathers, even the very Early ones [and I want to thank You whole-heartedly here for providing these marvelous first-century Clementine quotes], used such non-Biblical, nonJewish, nonScriptural typologies.
Nobody denies that they did that. What's controversial is the validity of the move. And just because the Fathers did something, it does not mean that it was a valid move or a move to emulate today.
And not every Father agreed with that move. For example Tertullian had some strong feelings in that regard. "What fellowship hath Jerusalem with Athens?"
So, in reality, Lvka, you are just begging the question for your own views.
I had no ideea that there were three wells at the roots of Igdrasil: this makes the parallelism to the four rivers of Paradise all the more apparent. The fact that one of them is the well of wisdom is very helpful (Tree of Knowledge). The fact that the third is responsible for the spring of many rivers is also encouraging, strengthening what I said before about the four rivers. The three wells are the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Source of all Life; and the four rivers are the Four Holy Gospels, which have in them the key to inheriting Eternal Life.
Actually, its more likely that the reason that we have some similarities here is that there is simply a shared inheritance given that all mankind started in the same place. It does not therefore follow that the World-Tree has Christological signifance because the two trees, assuming for the sake of argument that you can find such signficance in them, are the Garden and there is signifance in those particular trees.
Yes, the fact that it's a tree is of a primary importance, since that's the Hebraism for the Cross. (Acts 5:30; Acts 10:39; Galatians 3:13) Sometimes a tree is a tree. Is every reference to a tree in Scripture a reference to the cross? No.
Stick to the original topic of John Calvin and friends.
Here's a warning for you, JNORM888. You don't get to give orders here - not now, not ever. Playing demagogue here can get you banned. This isn't your blog. If you don't like what's said here, you can always change the channel.
You are not an Apostle writing under the inspiration of the Spirit.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to believe that it is Christ and His Holy Apostles that set out for us the rule of conduct and norm to be followed. I think it's sad that You thinking otherwise.
FYI: The allusion is not to the Assumption of Moses, but the Testament of Moses
To my humble knowledge, the two sources became conflated, just like Isaiah's Martyrdom and Dream.
Yes. It linked once again earth to Heaven and God with man.
That's not what the World-Tree does. The World-Tree supported the whole universe.
I'm very disappointed to see You pretend to have missed my first comment on how the Cross supports the entire Universe: well, here it is again:
"The Cross sustains the entire Universe by the Life-giving Sacrifice and death-destroying death of the One that died on it to rise on the third day: without it, we would've perished long ago".
It's a creation myth, not a cosmological myth.
And Passion Week parallels Creation Week:
-- Friday Adam and Eve (Life) were created, the later being taken from his bleeding open side; on Great Friday, Christ was pierced in His side, and through His Life-giving Blood he gained unto Himself an unspotted Bride, the Church, "not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" by his cleansing Blood (Ephesians 5:27).
-- Saturday the Lord rested of His works; on Great Saturday, our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ rested in the tomb (and the funny thing is, they thought that He broke the Sabbath: but who can keep the Sabbath better than a dead man?).
-- On Sunday, God innitiated Creation by creating first the Light. On Easter-Sunday, Christ innitiated a New Creation, by restoring the old and fallen one through His Holy resurrection, He being "the Light of the world", who shone from the grave, bringing Life to men.
Jesus did not sacrifice anything in order to gain wisdom like Odin
Oh, but Adam sacrificed EVERYTHING in order to get what he falsely thought to have been wisdom, but he was deluded by the Serpent of old. And Christ *WAS* God's Holy Wisdom, (also represented by the snake that Moses lifted up in the wilderness).
I think the "fables" that he's refering to are the doctrines of the Judaizers (1 Timothy 1:4; 2 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14). There's more to it than that.
[...]
This can't be exegeted from the text of Scripture. That's because you're talking all up out of your head.
Oh, but I'm affraid it can. :-) All that it really takes is just a simple reading of the text. :-)
The Two Trees, centered and set-apart from all the rest, also represent the Two Divine Persons: the hypostatic Wisdom of God [Christ] by the Tree of Knowledge, and the hypostatic Life of God [the Holy Ghost] by the Tree of Life.
This can't be exegeted from the text of Scripture. That's because you're talking all up out of your head.
Nothing to exegete there: Christ as Wisdom and Christ as Logos are central themes to the Solomonic, respectively Johanine Pentateuchs. And "spirit" (or "breath") is an ubiquitous symbol for and element of life (along with the concept of blood).
Jannes and Jambres are the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses according to Jewish tradition. So, Jude alludes to the OT and then simply gives a couple of names, because his audience like sectarian Jewish lit.
My, Oh, My ... !
What Jude does is there not the same as calling on a complete myth and drawing Christological analogies that can't be exegeted from Scripture and have no license from it - for example Norse mythology about the cosmology of the universe.
And who told You that he did that? All I said or did was to respond to Your comment regarding the Apostolic use of "Jewish fables", about which You said that it was prohibited.
And not every Father agreed with that move. For example Tertullian had some strong feelings in that regard. "What fellowship hath Jerusalem with Athens?"
And the great Photios also shared similar views, but *both* ways are condoned by Patristical Tradition.
Actually, its more likely that the reason that we have some similarities here is that there is simply a shared inheritance given that all mankind started in the same place.
Same here, Gene.
JNORM888 SAID:
ReplyDelete"What I said was in regard to a certain topic. You guys like to play games, and I'm tired of playing it with you. Stick to the original topic of John Calvin and friends."
It's very germane to the topic at hand. You're the one who justifies your theory of the Trinity by appealing to apostolic tradition (as you're pleased to call it). So I applied your own criterion to another test case to see how seriously you take your own criterion.
Steve said,
ReplyDelete"
What I said was in regard to a certain topic. You guys like to play games, and I'm tired of playing it with you. Stick to the original topic of John Calvin and friends."
It's very germane to the topic at hand. You're the one who justifies your theory of the Trinity by appealing to apostolic tradition (as you're pleased to call it). So I applied your own criterion to another test case to see how seriously you take your own criterion."
I see your point. But it's onething to say that about a tradition that has it's origin in one place. It's another thing when a "tradition" is from multiple regions.
Both Saint Peter and Paul traveled from the East to the West. And this is where you will have a tradition that will have it's origin from multiple regions.
Saint John had the Revelation on the Island of Patmos (around 70 something A.D.)
When he was freed, that's when people knew of the book (around 90 something A.D.)
So from 33 A.D. to about 70 something A.D., the book didn't exist, so churches in every region never had.
From 70 something A.D. to about 90 something A.D., only Saint John had the book.
So from 70 A.D. to about 90 something A.D., most churches didn't know of the books existence.
Saint John was freed around 90 something A.D. and that's when it was made known. And from that region, it had to spread to other places where christians were, and that took time.
Now we don't know for sure how John interpreted chapter 20. But we do know how Saint Papoas interpreted it. And so the finger is mostly pointed at him, eventhough he said he got it from "unwritten tradition".
But I do understand your point. But's that's one twig, and it's easy to break one twig(especially if that One twig came later in time). It's hard to break many. And this is why I thought the doctrine of the Trinity was a little different from "Premill", when it comes to the issue of "Apostolic tradition".
But I do understand what your saying.
JNORM888
Jnorm888 said:
ReplyDelete“Now we don't know for sure how John interpreted chapter 20. But we do know how Saint Papoas interpreted it. And so the finger is mostly pointed at him, eventhough he said he got it from ‘unwritten tradition’. But I do understand your point. But's that's one twig, and it's easy to break one twig(especially if that One twig came later in time). It's hard to break many. And this is why I thought the doctrine of the Trinity was a little different from ‘Premill’, when it comes to the issue of ‘Apostolic tradition’.”
There’s no reason to date Papias before the premillennial elders Irenaeus refers to. And you’ve given us no reason to doubt Papias’ claim that his premillennialism came from another source. Furthermore, you need to justify your assumption that premillennialism came from only one apostle, whereas the Trinitarian doctrine you’re advocating came from more than one. If you can speculate, without evidence, that somebody like Papias or Justin Martyr was responsible for popularizing premillennialism, then somebody else can speculate that one or more of the earliest advocates of your Trinitarian doctrine had the same sort of role in popularizing that doctrine.
As I’ve said before in response to your previous claims on this subject, the fact that a belief is widespread doesn’t tell us where the belief came from or how the people who held that belief viewed its importance and background. Somebody can hold a belief, yet consider it an unverifiable development of apostolic teaching, a development that he doesn’t think others are obligated to accept. Or he can think that others are obligated to accept it, but that they’re obligated to do so because he thinks the developed doctrine is an implication of apostolic teaching, not because the apostles directly taught it. You keep ignoring these distinctions and keep making assumptions that you haven’t justified.