THE CATHANGLODOX THREAD

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
Del
Mr. Hot Legs
Mr. Hot Legs
Posts: 39850
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Post by Del » Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:57 pm

Thunktank wrote:
infidel wrote:I miss wosbald.
8O

Whoa! I'm I seeing what I think I see?
It's otherdel!!!!!!
REMEMBER THE KAVANAUGH!

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
serapion
I'll make yer head spin!
I'll make yer head spin!
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: New Yorker from Connecticut, now exiled to the Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by serapion » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:10 pm

Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
I am a pipe smoker, the very embodiment of mellow.
I let nothing chap my ass.

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Post by Thunktank » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:15 pm

serapion wrote:
Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
Eh, part of the punch line I was hoping we could talk about eventually was missed entirely. That is the "personal" nature of our relationship with God and the effects that sin has on that. That is the part where I think the writer had a good contribution. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually everyone that posted does believe in a juridical gospel to one degree or another which I do not believe. That view goes beyond God as a judge. But I really don't have the will to go about it anymore. Whatever. Unfortunately, the presentation the writer had on the judging that God does do, did miss the mark and I was hoping other Orthodox here would identify it and see it.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Tue Dec 11, 2012 2:48 pm

+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
serapion wrote:
Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
Eh, part of the punch line I was hoping we could talk about eventually was missed entirely. That is the "personal" nature of our relationship with God and the effects that sin has on that. That is the part where I think the writer had a good contribution. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually everyone that posted does believe in a juridical gospel to one degree or another which I do not believe. That view goes beyond God as a judge. But I really don't have the will to go about it anymore. Whatever.
I don't believe that Ransom Atonement necessarily excludes parallel theological perspectives.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
jruegg
Mr. Eggs
Mr. Eggs
Posts: 25601
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Kingdom of God (Mk 1:15)
Contact:

Post by jruegg » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:18 pm

filioque

*ducks*
Image

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Post by Thunktank » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:25 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
serapion wrote:
Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
Eh, part of the punch line I was hoping we could talk about eventually was missed entirely. That is the "personal" nature of our relationship with God and the effects that sin has on that. That is the part where I think the writer had a good contribution. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually everyone that posted does believe in a juridical gospel to one degree or another which I do not believe. That view goes beyond God as a judge. But I really don't have the will to go about it anymore. Whatever.
I don't believe that Ransom Atonement necessarily excludes parallel theological perspectives.
Well, that depends upon how one views dogma and revelation I suppose. Lets just not or forget which perspective came first. Furthermore, the "Ransom theory" really isn't the Orthodox belief about the atonement either. That's a theory created by those with a juridical paradigm. The result is that Satan has more rights than he does.
Last edited by Thunktank on Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:34 pm

+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
serapion wrote:
Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
Eh, part of the punch line I was hoping we could talk about eventually was missed entirely. That is the "personal" nature of our relationship with God and the effects that sin has on that. That is the part where I think the writer had a good contribution. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually everyone that posted does believe in a juridical gospel to one degree or another which I do not believe. That view goes beyond God as a judge. But I really don't have the will to go about it anymore. Whatever.
I don't believe that Ransom Atonement necessarily excludes parallel theological perspectives.
Well, that depends upon how one views dogma and revelation I suppose. Lets just not or forget which perspective came first.
Are you saying that the Orthodox believe that Ransom is part of the Deposit of Faith and not simply a theological school of thought? I would find that surprising.

And I'm not talking about some Orthodox. I'm sure that there are some Latins who are under the impression that Substitution theology is part of the Deposit, as well.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Post by Thunktank » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:39 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
serapion wrote:
Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
Eh, part of the punch line I was hoping we could talk about eventually was missed entirely. That is the "personal" nature of our relationship with God and the effects that sin has on that. That is the part where I think the writer had a good contribution. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually everyone that posted does believe in a juridical gospel to one degree or another which I do not believe. That view goes beyond God as a judge. But I really don't have the will to go about it anymore. Whatever.
I don't believe that Ransom Atonement necessarily excludes parallel theological perspectives.
Well, that depends upon how one views dogma and revelation I suppose. Lets just not or forget which perspective came first.
Are you saying that the Orthodox believe that Ransom is part of the Deposit of Faith and not simply a theological school of thought? I would find that surprising.

And I'm not talking about some Orthodox. I'm sure that there are some Latins who are under the impression that Substitution theology is part of the Deposit, as well.
No, as I added above as you posted this, Ransom theory isn't Orthodox either. At best it's a close approximation but only if understood in context with other attributes of God and the place of Satan.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Post by Thunktank » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:44 pm

Here's an easy to follow essay on the nature of the love of God from an Orthodox perspective.

I'll add this over here in this thread too. Let's see what you guys have to say about this. It's almost like there's virtually no common ground between the RCC and the Orthodox concerning certain fundamentals. I hope I'm wrong and I hope the guy who wrote this about the RCC has mistakenly represented the RCC.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:51 pm

+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
serapion wrote:
Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
Eh, part of the punch line I was hoping we could talk about eventually was missed entirely. That is the "personal" nature of our relationship with God and the effects that sin has on that. That is the part where I think the writer had a good contribution. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually everyone that posted does believe in a juridical gospel to one degree or another which I do not believe. That view goes beyond God as a judge. But I really don't have the will to go about it anymore. Whatever.
I don't believe that Ransom Atonement necessarily excludes parallel theological perspectives.
Well, that depends upon how one views dogma and revelation I suppose. Lets just not or forget which perspective came first.
Are you saying that the Orthodox believe that Ransom is part of the Deposit of Faith and not simply a theological school of thought? I would find that surprising.

And I'm not talking about some Orthodox. I'm sure that there are some Latins who are under the impression that Substitution theology is part of the Deposit, as well.
No, as I added above as you posted this, Ransom theory isn't Orthodox either. At best it's a close approximation but only if understood in context with other attributes of God and the place of Satan.
Either way, your use of the word "theory" makes it sound non-Dogmatic. And if that's the case, then wouldn't it it admissible that there are potentially many views that accord with the Sacred Deposit, whether "Ransom" (however you want to nuance that) or Satisfaction or others?

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Post by Thunktank » Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:09 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Thunktank wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
wosbald wrote:
Thunktank wrote:
serapion wrote:
Thunktank wrote:I moved this from another theology thread. I should have put it here to begin with. I'm actually more interested in how the Catholics and Orthodox perceive this quote than I am in watching the Protestant vs Catholic tirades.
I confess I found the various responses more instructive, if predicatable, than your OP!
Eh, part of the punch line I was hoping we could talk about eventually was missed entirely. That is the "personal" nature of our relationship with God and the effects that sin has on that. That is the part where I think the writer had a good contribution. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually everyone that posted does believe in a juridical gospel to one degree or another which I do not believe. That view goes beyond God as a judge. But I really don't have the will to go about it anymore. Whatever.
I don't believe that Ransom Atonement necessarily excludes parallel theological perspectives.
Well, that depends upon how one views dogma and revelation I suppose. Lets just not or forget which perspective came first.
Are you saying that the Orthodox believe that Ransom is part of the Deposit of Faith and not simply a theological school of thought? I would find that surprising.

And I'm not talking about some Orthodox. I'm sure that there are some Latins who are under the impression that Substitution theology is part of the Deposit, as well.
No, as I added above as you posted this, Ransom theory isn't Orthodox either. At best it's a close approximation but only if understood in context with other attributes of God and the place of Satan.
Either way, your use of the word "theory" makes it sound non-Dogmatic. And if that's the case, then wouldn't it it admissible that there are potentially many views that accord with the Sacred Deposit, whether "Ransom" (however you want to nuance that) or Satisfaction or others?
Well, you should know by now that I'm not one for exacting words sometimes. You used the word "theory" so I did. I do believe our theology concerning the atonement is simply called "Orthodox" and yes, you may take a laugh at that. Ultimately what I'm getting at is, no matter how we describe the theology concerning the atonement we need to have a good foundation to begin with. It needs to portray the Gospel as the Gospel is and was presented and it should be recognizable by all orthodox Christians everywhere and from all time. Other theories may be attempts to describe it which is fine if it actually does so truly.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:28 pm

Thunktank wrote:Here's an easy to follow essay on the nature of the love of God from an Orthodox perspective.

I'll add this over here in this thread too. Let's see what you guys have to say about this. It's almost like there's virtually no common ground between the RCC and the Orthodox concerning certain fundamentals. I hope I'm wrong and I hope the guy who wrote this about the RCC has mistakenly represented the RCC.
Well, I gave it a quick read (I'll have to give it a longer read later), but as far as I can tell, the only mistake he's making is that he's reifying (absolutizing) the paradigm. To say that Death is a punishment from God or to say that Death is a misery brought about by Man's selfishness are just flip-sides of the same coin, AFAIAC.

Though I haven't read the whole thing, I'm certain that I can accept his view, but I just can't accept it as necessarily exclusive of all other views.

Here is an interesting Catholic theological exposition of Original Sin.
Jean Borella wrote:Recall that the dogma of original sin obliges us to believe two things. On one hand, we have lost the integrity of our nature, and, on the other, we contract, from our conception, a fault that we have not committed, but for which we are culpable. This truth is hard to hold. However, this can be understood if we allow that our nature not only has the task of developing itself along the lines of its natural orientations, but is likewise pledged to entering a relationship with supernatural life. This is even its most profound ontological duty. To deny the original fault that marks us, is to deny that man has a supernatural destiny and to enclose him in a purely natural one. To maintain the tradition of this dogma is to teach man that he bears within himself the seal, the mark, the negative trace of a deep-seated duty of being oriented to the supernatural life. Original sin is the memory within us of a first and lost grace; its ontological depth and mystery are only revealed by the redemptive annihilation of Jesus Christ: only the seal of baptism reveals the seal of sin by which our nature has been historically marked. Thus the guilt, inherited because of primal sin and the unity of human nature, is not a personal guilt but a guilt inherent to the Adamic origin of our nature. We do not have to answer for an uncommitted sin before God, but for our fallen nature and what we have done with respect to its spiritual destiny. As for the lot of those who have died without baptism, especially infants, let us recall that, according to the Shepherd of Hermas, written during the apostolic period, the Apostles 'descended into Hell' to baptize the just who died without the 'seal' of Christ (Similitudes, ix, 16).

To consider original sin as a seal will be acceptable if one first remembers that original sin and personal or actual sin are not be confused: no infant at birth as committed the sin of Adam, nor the least sinful act; original sin, say the theologians, is a sin of nature. [This doctrine presupposes a distinction between person and nature. Adam's sin is a personal one (an act of his person) the consequence of which is to wound the integrity of a nature for which he was responsible. He then transmits to his descendants a ruined nature. Our nature being the means and the mode of our relationship to the world, it is offered to our person as a field to be worked, and image to be rendered into likeness, an instrument upon which the person should play, but a discordant instrument. If the person becomes involved in this discord, obeying the deviant orientations of his nature, he commits a personal sin.]... Thus, the potential to sin was in Adam before he accomplished his sin; it is to be identified with his freedom, and it is the very person of Adam that sins. But once accomplished, this original and personal act marks nature with a humanly indelible seal, the function of which is to dispose the nature to disorder, that is to place it in an actual relationship with diabolical forces for the accomplishment of every particular sinful act. Original sin within us is not, then, the general and indeterminate possiblity for sinning (implied by our freedom), but is a steadfast orientation of our nature to deny the supernatural end to which God's love summons us; in short, it is a habitus.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Thunktank
Needs to smoke more
Needs to smoke more
Posts: 22695
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: 471 Km from the London Bridge

Post by Thunktank » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:47 pm

Circumstances have sent me to a new parish which I will probably be joining in the next month or two. At any rate, it's one of the most ecumenical parishes I've ever heard of. Here's an example of grass roots ecumenism between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Probably more of this needs to happen at many other parishes too. I hope the Cathanglodox here on CPS take the time to read it.

St. Paul's book club
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -Yoda

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:15 am

+JMJ+
A buddy of mine (some variety of "Messianic Christian") sent me the following. I'm not particularly versed in this subject matter, but I was wondering what others might have to say about it...
Armenian Apostolic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, unlike Protestants, do not celebrate the birth of Yeshua HaMashiach on December 25th, due to differences between the Armenian, Julian and Gregorian calendars.

The Tanakh (Jewish Scriptures), however, doesn't identify the month in which the Messiah would be born, nor does the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) identify the exact date of His birth.

Scripture does give us an indication of the time of year.

“I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11)



When was the Messiah Born?

“And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” (Luke 2:8 )

Although Christmas is a well-established Christian tradition, Bible scholars know that December 25th is not the true date of Yeshua’s birth.

Winter in Israel is generally too cold at night to be out shepherding flocks, and yet at the time of Yeshua’s birth, the shepherds were in the fields watching over their flocks at night.

This December in Jerusalem, the temperature has been averaging about 60 degrees Fahrenheit, with the temperature dropping below 50 at night.

While the men in our ministry can get away with wearing short sleeve shirts for part of the day, around 4 p.m. as the sun goes down, it becomes quite cold, and they need to put on a warm jacket.

Another point to consider when trying to determine the time of year that Yeshua (Jesus) was born is the fact that winter in Israel is not a logical time to take a census because of the cold and rain. Occasionally, it even snows in Jerusalem. So the fact that Yoseph (Joseph) and Miriam (Mary) had gone to Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) to register for a census is a good indication that they were traveling in a warmer, drier season (Luke 2:1-5).

When they arrived, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were so crowded that no accommodations were available at the inn. Such crowding would have been more typical during one of the three pilgrimage feasts: Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost) or Sukkot (Tabernacles/Booths).

“While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” (Luke 2:6-7)

Likely, Yeshua was born at the end of the harvest, during the Biblical holiday of Sukkot, fulfilling the Scripture that one day the Lord would ‘tabernacle’ will His people. (Ezekiel 37:27)

“Look! God’s dwelling is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.” (Revelation 21:3)

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:29 pm

+JMJ+
wosbald wrote:A buddy of mine (some variety of "Messianic Christian") sent me the following. I'm not particularly versed in this subject matter, but I was wondering what others might have to say about it...
Armenian Apostolic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, unlike Protestants, do not celebrate the birth of Yeshua HaMashiach on December 25th, due to differences between the Armenian, Julian and Gregorian calendars.

The Tanakh (Jewish Scriptures), however, doesn't identify the month in which the Messiah would be born, nor does the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) identify the exact date of His birth.

Scripture does give us an indication of the time of year.

“I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11)



When was the Messiah Born?

“And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” (Luke 2:8 )

Although Christmas is a well-established Christian tradition, Bible scholars know that December 25th is not the true date of Yeshua’s birth.

Winter in Israel is generally too cold at night to be out shepherding flocks, and yet at the time of Yeshua’s birth, the shepherds were in the fields watching over their flocks at night.

This December in Jerusalem, the temperature has been averaging about 60 degrees Fahrenheit, with the temperature dropping below 50 at night.

While the men in our ministry can get away with wearing short sleeve shirts for part of the day, around 4 p.m. as the sun goes down, it becomes quite cold, and they need to put on a warm jacket.

Another point to consider when trying to determine the time of year that Yeshua (Jesus) was born is the fact that winter in Israel is not a logical time to take a census because of the cold and rain. Occasionally, it even snows in Jerusalem. So the fact that Yoseph (Joseph) and Miriam (Mary) had gone to Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) to register for a census is a good indication that they were traveling in a warmer, drier season (Luke 2:1-5).

When they arrived, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were so crowded that no accommodations were available at the inn. Such crowding would have been more typical during one of the three pilgrimage feasts: Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost) or Sukkot (Tabernacles/Booths).

“While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” (Luke 2:6-7)

Likely, Yeshua was born at the end of the harvest, during the Biblical holiday of Sukkot, fulfilling the Scripture that one day the Lord would ‘tabernacle’ will His people. (Ezekiel 37:27)

“Look! God’s dwelling is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.” (Revelation 21:3)
Bump for the Orthos. Anybody? Bueller?

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
Hovannes
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Minister of Unanswered Threads
Posts: 26312
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: In the fertile San Joaquin Valley

Post by Hovannes » Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:41 pm

The range sheep here in central California, which has a climate smiilar to much of Israel, have no problem lambing from late December onward (or cows calving, or horses foaling, for that matter) Three or four months of feeding is where tender spring lamb comes from---newborn lambs would be too small & scrawny---ewwww!
"What doesn't kill you, gives you a lot of unhealthy coping mechanisms and a really dark sense of humor."

User avatar
jo533281
like R2D2, just not as cool
like R2D2, just not as cool
Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jo533281 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:04 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
wosbald wrote:A buddy of mine (some variety of "Messianic Christian") sent me the following. I'm not particularly versed in this subject matter, but I was wondering what others might have to say about it...
Armenian Apostolic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, unlike Protestants, do not celebrate the birth of Yeshua HaMashiach on December 25th, due to differences between the Armenian, Julian and Gregorian calendars.

The Tanakh (Jewish Scriptures), however, doesn't identify the month in which the Messiah would be born, nor does the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) identify the exact date of His birth.

Scripture does give us an indication of the time of year.

“I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11)



When was the Messiah Born?

“And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” (Luke 2:8 )

Although Christmas is a well-established Christian tradition, Bible scholars know that December 25th is not the true date of Yeshua’s birth.

Winter in Israel is generally too cold at night to be out shepherding flocks, and yet at the time of Yeshua’s birth, the shepherds were in the fields watching over their flocks at night.

This December in Jerusalem, the temperature has been averaging about 60 degrees Fahrenheit, with the temperature dropping below 50 at night.

While the men in our ministry can get away with wearing short sleeve shirts for part of the day, around 4 p.m. as the sun goes down, it becomes quite cold, and they need to put on a warm jacket.

Another point to consider when trying to determine the time of year that Yeshua (Jesus) was born is the fact that winter in Israel is not a logical time to take a census because of the cold and rain. Occasionally, it even snows in Jerusalem. So the fact that Yoseph (Joseph) and Miriam (Mary) had gone to Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) to register for a census is a good indication that they were traveling in a warmer, drier season (Luke 2:1-5).

When they arrived, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were so crowded that no accommodations were available at the inn. Such crowding would have been more typical during one of the three pilgrimage feasts: Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost) or Sukkot (Tabernacles/Booths).

“While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” (Luke 2:6-7)

Likely, Yeshua was born at the end of the harvest, during the Biblical holiday of Sukkot, fulfilling the Scripture that one day the Lord would ‘tabernacle’ will His people. (Ezekiel 37:27)

“Look! God’s dwelling is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.” (Revelation 21:3)
Bump for the Orthos. Anybody? Bueller?
I have heard priests and bishops talk about this very thing: that Christ was not born on Christmas day. Does anyone really care? I mean, the traditional date for Christ's crucifixion is March 25th, and yet Easter is a variable feast that changes every year. I could care less (that was for you, UB :wink: ) if it is the real date or not. It is about the birth of the Savior, not just in time, historically, but in us, continually. I have no preference either for the old calendar (January 6th) or the new calendar celebration except that on the old calendar I can celebrate Christmas outside the normal secular garbage that takes place on the 25th. Not sure what exactly you wanted here Wos. Just my 2 cents.
"This is not facebook, we are not here to boost your self esteem or hang on your every word." -Zed-

"It's all right, Andy! It's just bolognaise!"

Most Likely to Draw Pirates with a Post

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 20943
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:08 pm

+JMJ+
jo533281 wrote:
wosbald wrote:
wosbald wrote:A buddy of mine (some variety of "Messianic Christian") sent me the following. I'm not particularly versed in this subject matter, but I was wondering what others might have to say about it...
Armenian Apostolic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, unlike Protestants, do not celebrate the birth of Yeshua HaMashiach on December 25th, due to differences between the Armenian, Julian and Gregorian calendars.

The Tanakh (Jewish Scriptures), however, doesn't identify the month in which the Messiah would be born, nor does the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) identify the exact date of His birth.

Scripture does give us an indication of the time of year.

“I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11)



When was the Messiah Born?

“And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” (Luke 2:8 )

Although Christmas is a well-established Christian tradition, Bible scholars know that December 25th is not the true date of Yeshua’s birth.

Winter in Israel is generally too cold at night to be out shepherding flocks, and yet at the time of Yeshua’s birth, the shepherds were in the fields watching over their flocks at night.

This December in Jerusalem, the temperature has been averaging about 60 degrees Fahrenheit, with the temperature dropping below 50 at night.

While the men in our ministry can get away with wearing short sleeve shirts for part of the day, around 4 p.m. as the sun goes down, it becomes quite cold, and they need to put on a warm jacket.

Another point to consider when trying to determine the time of year that Yeshua (Jesus) was born is the fact that winter in Israel is not a logical time to take a census because of the cold and rain. Occasionally, it even snows in Jerusalem. So the fact that Yoseph (Joseph) and Miriam (Mary) had gone to Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) to register for a census is a good indication that they were traveling in a warmer, drier season (Luke 2:1-5).

When they arrived, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were so crowded that no accommodations were available at the inn. Such crowding would have been more typical during one of the three pilgrimage feasts: Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost) or Sukkot (Tabernacles/Booths).

“While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” (Luke 2:6-7)

Likely, Yeshua was born at the end of the harvest, during the Biblical holiday of Sukkot, fulfilling the Scripture that one day the Lord would ‘tabernacle’ will His people. (Ezekiel 37:27)

“Look! God’s dwelling is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.” (Revelation 21:3)
Bump for the Orthos. Anybody? Bueller?
I have heard priests and bishops talk about this very thing: that Christ was not born on Christmas day. Does anyone really care? I mean, the traditional date for Christ's crucifixion is March 25th, and yet Easter is a variable feast that changes every year. I could care less (that was for you, UB :wink: ) if it is the real date or not. It is about the birth of the Savior, not just in time, historically, but in us, continually. I have no preference either for the old calendar (January 6th) or the new calendar celebration except that on the old calendar I can celebrate Christmas outside the normal secular garbage that takes place on the 25th. Not sure what exactly you wanted here Wos. Just my 2 cents.
The point is that this school of thought says that Christ was born in something like Sept-Oct.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
jo533281
like R2D2, just not as cool
like R2D2, just not as cool
Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jo533281 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:13 pm

Thunktank wrote:Circumstances have sent me to a new parish which I will probably be joining in the next month or two. At any rate, it's one of the most ecumenical parishes I've ever heard of. Here's an example of grass roots ecumenism between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Probably more of this needs to happen at many other parishes too. I hope the Cathanglodox here on CPS take the time to read it.

St. Paul's book club
There is actually an Orthodox fellow in Kalamazoo who wants to get a Patristic reading group going and host it either at the local Orthodox parish (about 15 min from campus) or at St. Thomas Moore Catholic parish (about 5 min from campus). I, for one, would be overjoyed to do so. It would be open to anyone too, not just the RC and EO in Kalamazoo.
"This is not facebook, we are not here to boost your self esteem or hang on your every word." -Zed-

"It's all right, Andy! It's just bolognaise!"

Most Likely to Draw Pirates with a Post

User avatar
jo533281
like R2D2, just not as cool
like R2D2, just not as cool
Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jo533281 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:14 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
jo533281 wrote:
wosbald wrote:
wosbald wrote:A buddy of mine (some variety of "Messianic Christian") sent me the following. I'm not particularly versed in this subject matter, but I was wondering what others might have to say about it...
Armenian Apostolic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, unlike Protestants, do not celebrate the birth of Yeshua HaMashiach on December 25th, due to differences between the Armenian, Julian and Gregorian calendars.

The Tanakh (Jewish Scriptures), however, doesn't identify the month in which the Messiah would be born, nor does the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) identify the exact date of His birth.

Scripture does give us an indication of the time of year.

“I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord." (Luke 2:10-11)



When was the Messiah Born?

“And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” (Luke 2:8 )

Although Christmas is a well-established Christian tradition, Bible scholars know that December 25th is not the true date of Yeshua’s birth.

Winter in Israel is generally too cold at night to be out shepherding flocks, and yet at the time of Yeshua’s birth, the shepherds were in the fields watching over their flocks at night.

This December in Jerusalem, the temperature has been averaging about 60 degrees Fahrenheit, with the temperature dropping below 50 at night.

While the men in our ministry can get away with wearing short sleeve shirts for part of the day, around 4 p.m. as the sun goes down, it becomes quite cold, and they need to put on a warm jacket.

Another point to consider when trying to determine the time of year that Yeshua (Jesus) was born is the fact that winter in Israel is not a logical time to take a census because of the cold and rain. Occasionally, it even snows in Jerusalem. So the fact that Yoseph (Joseph) and Miriam (Mary) had gone to Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) to register for a census is a good indication that they were traveling in a warmer, drier season (Luke 2:1-5).

When they arrived, Jerusalem and Bethlehem were so crowded that no accommodations were available at the inn. Such crowding would have been more typical during one of the three pilgrimage feasts: Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Pentecost) or Sukkot (Tabernacles/Booths).

“While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.” (Luke 2:6-7)

Likely, Yeshua was born at the end of the harvest, during the Biblical holiday of Sukkot, fulfilling the Scripture that one day the Lord would ‘tabernacle’ will His people. (Ezekiel 37:27)

“Look! God’s dwelling is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.” (Revelation 21:3)
Bump for the Orthos. Anybody? Bueller?
I have heard priests and bishops talk about this very thing: that Christ was not born on Christmas day. Does anyone really care? I mean, the traditional date for Christ's crucifixion is March 25th, and yet Easter is a variable feast that changes every year. I could care less (that was for you, UB :wink: ) if it is the real date or not. It is about the birth of the Savior, not just in time, historically, but in us, continually. I have no preference either for the old calendar (January 6th) or the new calendar celebration except that on the old calendar I can celebrate Christmas outside the normal secular garbage that takes place on the 25th. Not sure what exactly you wanted here Wos. Just my 2 cents.
The point is that this school of thought says that Christ was born in something like Sept-Oct.
Right or wrong, I still shrug my shoulders and go to liturgy Christmas morning.
"This is not facebook, we are not here to boost your self esteem or hang on your every word." -Zed-

"It's all right, Andy! It's just bolognaise!"

Most Likely to Draw Pirates with a Post

Post Reply