2,641 reputation
51962
bio website
location Taiwan
age
visits member for 3 years, 10 months
seen 52 mins ago

I often chose best answers not because they are the best, but because I have to choose a best answer. Please, don't take offense to it.


May
19
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
You might want to expand on your answer - I just edited my question. My original intention in it was not to ask about what an Apocrypha is, but rather about what Apocrypha are the part of the Catholic or the Orthodox traditions and which ones are not.
May
19
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
Ah, I got it now. Thanks for the clarification.
May
18
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
So where in my words have you seen my "historic relativism"? And what did you mean by saying "I raise you one Council of Nicaea"? Did you mean to say "I refer you to the Council of Nicaea"?
May
18
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
I see your historic relativism and raise you one Council of Nicaea - What do you mean?!
May
17
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
"Each church decided which books were going into their bible, and if they didn't, the book is not holy to them by definition" - Well, this is at least not true about the Orthodox Church. They consider many books outside of the canon to be the part of their Holy Tradition and believe whatever is written in them and don't question the validity of the events described in them.
May
16
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
@Steve - "If the works are not considered part of their canon, then they are by definition not Apocrypha" - I am quite confused by this statement. Do you mean to say that the cannon is consisted only of Apocrypha?! "Perhaps you are asking whether there are any more holy or inspired works than those in the Catholic Bible?" - I am asking about if there are any Apocrypha (like "Acts of Andrew", "Gospel of Mary", etc.) that are not considered by Catholics and the Orthodox to be part of their canons and yet are considered by them to be the part of their holy tradition.
May
16
comment Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why?
@kutschkem - "By apocrypha, do you mean those that are in the bible?" - No. I mean those that are NOT in the Bible.
May
13
comment In the parable of the ten minas, why does the king kill his enemies?
@Andrew - I could've, but I forgot where exactly I came across that interpretation.
Apr
27
comment Matthew 18:10 “Children's angels always behold the face of the Father” - what does this mean?
@AndreasBlass - "The verse doesn't say that adults don't also have guardian angels who behold the face of God" - However, the verse doesn't say 'their angels do ALSO always behold the face of my Father' either. True, the verse does not deny the fact of existence of an individual guardian angel for each adult, but neither does it explicitly state that it talks exactly about the individual guardian angels. It may be a special group of angels that are somehow responsible for some additional protection for humans while they are still in the early days of their life course.
Apr
27
comment Matthew 18:10 “Children's angels always behold the face of the Father” - what does this mean?
@Andrew - By 'this place' I meant 'this place in the Scriptures', that is, Matthew 18:10. Perhaps, the word 'verse' would be better here. I will edit my question.
Apr
10
comment Books of NT written after the assumption of Mary
My question was "... after assumption of Mary", not "... after the earliest reference to the assumption of Mary".
Apr
8
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
@BrianHitchcock - So what about the souls of the martyred ones that John saw under the alter in Rev 6:9? Do you mean to say that they are the spirits that had already been somehow re-united with their bodies by that time? John says specifically that he saw souls.
Apr
7
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(2) In other words, the existence of a function and the manifestation of that function are two different things – if function hasn’t been manifested it doesn’t mean that the function does not exist. However, what St. Thomas says is basically this: because the soul is not united with the body (= is not yet manifested) it doesn’t exist. I don’t see his logic here.
Apr
7
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(1) “But I think he's talking about Adam's creation, not ours. Adam was created fully functional” – Yes. That’s exactly what I mean. Adam was created fully functional, which means that the function of being fruitful and multiplying was in him as soon as he was created. However, it doesn’t mean that he started being fruitful and multiplying right at the moment of his creation – at least not before God said “be fruitful and multiply”.
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
Sorry, I didn't understand your point. What do you mean?
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(4) A more simple example – human lungs. As we know, humans only start using their lungs at the moment of their birth and the first exposure to the air. While the baby is still inside of mother’s womb, it doesn’t yet breathe using lungs. So, you could tell that lungs of a human come into the state of "natural perfection" at the moment when he starts to breathe. However, how does it prove that before the human baby is born it doesn’t already have lungs?
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(3) You could tell that their ability for childbearing came into the state of its "natural perfection" when they gave a birth to their first child, but does it really mean that they only acquired this ability at the very moment of giving a birth? I guess they already had this ability in them when they were created. For sure, when God was commanding them to be fruitful and multiply, they already had this ability in them, otherwise it would’ve been rather unfair for God to command them to do something that they weren’t naturally able to do.
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(2) After all, there were many things pertaining to the human nature that were not immediately in the state of their "natural perfection" right at the moment of creation. Take or example humans’ ability for childbearing. Humans did not start giving birth to other humans right after they were created. In fact, it even took God to tell them “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” before they could give a birth to their first child.
Apr
6
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
(1) I've re-read your link number of times, but still didn't get the logic there. For example, this: "Now the soul, as a part of human nature, has its natural perfection only as united to the body. Therefore it would have been unfitting for the soul to be created without the body". I don't get this logic. How does the fact that the soul gets its "natural perfection" only as united to the body proves that it was not created without a body first?
Apr
5
comment Was this teaching (of soul existing before a birth) condemned by the Church?
"In any event, our souls are created with our bodies in our mothers womb" - How do we know that?