ON THE VIRGIN MARY, PART 1.

[MrLegoman247]

Please address Matthew 13:55 and Luke 1:24 with regard to the Virgin Mary. These are the two scriptures my Protestant friends point to in order to show that Jesus was not the only child Mary and Joseph had, and in fact they say she may have had up to 5 sons and Luke 1:24 seems to state that Joseph waited UNTIL Mary gave birth. Your response would be greatly appreciated.

[Fantezism]

And yeah, Mary and God's saints are worthy to be venerated. Christ, in His prayer in Ghetsemane said: " The glory that You (the Father) have bestowed upon Me, I have bestowed upon them (the apostles) that we may be one ". Christ and His saints are one; so you may venerate His saints, God won't mind. Why would he? Would you as an artist feel insulted if people appreciated your masterpieces? Of course not. So why would God feel insulted if you venerate the masterpieces that His saints are?

[Fantezism]

Thank you for this clip. Mary wasn't forced to be the mother of God; she did have the liberty to refuse God's proposal. God told Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge but He didn't deny her liberty to disobey Him. Have you ever wondered why it took so much time for God's incarnation to happen? Why couldn't he have become human right after the fall of Adam and Eve? He was waiting for a truly faithful soul to be born, a soul worthy to be His mother . Mary is God's most perfect creation.

[ponyboy1488]

Blahoslovy Vladyko,

First, I enjoy so many of your videos and some are simply moving. I understand there is much controversy over some of the subjects you speak of, including mainly the Aerial Toll Houses.

How come it is that even Fr. Thomas Hoppko talks about such things? I have heard/read claims of contemporary and early Fathers speak of Tollhouses.

May I also inquire as to your counter to claims of there being no God?

[allsaintsmonastery]

@ponyboy1488 It is difficult to argue with true and sincere Atheists, because the basis of arguments have weaknesses. For us, the presence of God in the universe is self-evident, and we are not concerend with "proofs" that God is there. What is most important for us is to live the faith in the presence fo the Living God, and bear witness with compassion and love to the presence of God. Paul told Titus not become involved in vain disputes, and all disputes with true atheists are vain.

[ponyboy1488]

@allsaintsmonastery

Thank you for the sincere reply. And to the aforementioned question of Toll Houses?

I appreciate your response and kiss your hand, asking for your blessing.

[liyish]

Thank u! Yes, virgin Mary mother of GOD accepted what she was told by St. Gabriel without question. Cooperation with complete faith. She is forever virgin. she is virgin in her mind and in her spirits. Jesus christ is her only son amen.

[MartinJWillett]

Mary openly cooperated? Where did you pull that notion from? She was not asked, she was told. If a god tells you something is going to happen in what way has a mortal got an input?

[allsaintsmonastery]

Depends on how you read the text, eh?

[MartinJWillett]

Quite. If you are reading it on the basis that this text must provide the answers people need from you or else you will have to find a proper job there is a strong motivation to find whatever you need in the text, in the punctuation, that which is not written but "clearly intended" or that which has probably been lost in translation or because of cultural insensitivities.

[allsaintsmonastery]

We read the text in the context of the Apostolic Tradition. Some read it in the context of a viturpritage atheism, others just from literary interest. You evidently have your own agenda, the Orthodox Church has hers. That is fine, but you should calm down a bit and not be quite so bitter. I express the Orthodox Church perspective, and that is precisely what you should expect me to do. You express an atheist perspective, and that is perfectly alright.

[ilbill220]

A real canadian 'eh'! I feel strangely happy... Weird...

[AlRasuwl]

Jesus's birth was based on ancient stories from astronomy (three kings, leading star, virgin, bethlehem)

Jesus's names (the light, etc) were based on Horus

Jesus's resurrection was based on ancient Roman stories about Mithras

Many of Jesus's teachings existed before he was supposed to have been born as has been proven by the discovery of pre-existing gnostic texts

Whether or not Jesus existed or not I do not know, but his life story is clearly plagiarised from other sources

All man made!

[ilbill220]

I'm guessing some of this you got from the first part of the movie Zeitgeist (correct me if I'm wrong). So, I'm going to go ahead and explain why most of the assumptions were false. Horus was not born of a virgin, his mother, Isis, had sexual intercourse with Osiris' dead body. Horus was not born in a manger, but in a swamp. There is no evidence for a leading star or such announcing Horus' birth. The Bible doesn't say how many kings/wise men came to Jesus, just that they gave him three gifts.

[ilbill220]

Continued: There are no stories or myths or legends about the death of Mithra, much less a ressurection. Besides, Mithra was a god that was worshipped by almost no one else but the Roman warriors, why would the peaceful Jews worship a Roman warrior god?

[AlRasuwl]

No, I didn't get it from zeitgeist.

Mithras was born of a virgin, celibate, saved people by shedding his blood.

Horus was the son of God, the light, the way, and so on.

Jesus' life appears to be a concoction of various myths.

This December 25th I intend to watch the sun rise, and see if the 3 kings line up with Sirius to indicate the position of the sun in the east.

[ilbill220]

Well at least you didn't get it from there.

I guess you could say Mithra was born of a virgin, his mother concieved him from the sperm of Zoroaster in some lake, and he supposedly was born in a rock. So that's pretty much true. Horus was the son of a god, Osiris, I haven't heard of him being called the light, or the way, if I don't mind, perhaps you could tell me. And neither Jesus nor anyone who knew him claimed he was born on December 25th.

[ilbill220]

*Perhaps you could tell me where you read/heard that.* Anyway, so even if they align on December 25th, which they probably will, it won't matter, because that was said to be the date of Jesus' birth hundreds of years after he was born.

[AlRasuwl]

I'll have to see if I can relocate the sources, but Horus was "the light". It was Horus who each night lost the fight against "the dark" (which brought about night) and then won it the next day bringing back the light.

He was a sun god, he was the bringer of light.

(December 25th)

And yet many countries accept this, so there has obviously been a mixing of legends there.

[ilbill220]

Oh, I guess we had different sources; I read that originally Osiris was the sun god, but then he became the god of the underworld. I read that Horus was the sky god the whole time, so I guess when Osiris became god of the underworld, Horus became the sun god also by default. I also read that Horus was also the god of the night sky too. Although I have also heard the story that he lost the battle against 'the dark' also. I have to agree with you that he could be considered a sun god.

[AlRasuwl]

I believe it was Horus who each day won the battle against "the dark" and brought "the light", only to lose the battle at the end of each night. Therefore Horus was "the light" and was the son of God.

[ilbill220]

Yes, that does seem to be the more well known version.

[ilbill220]

Continued: I agree with you, there has definitely been a mixing of legends regarding the birth of Jesus being on December 25th; anyone that disagrees is very misinformed. The question is whether they were mixed before after the birth year of Jesus.

[AlRasuwl]

But onto this video. I am thinking of a quote from a TV programme, do you know what it is? Of course not, because you don't know my mind.

So if MY mind cannot be read and I am a mere human, how can religious people claim to know the mind of an entity with a mind infinitely more complicated?

[ilbill220]

The religious do not claim to know what the mind of an entity with a mind infinitely more complicated is thinking. Obviously, you can not know what someone is thinking. They claim to know what he mind of an entity with a mind infinitely more complicated spoke to the world by means of enlightment, personal revelation, messengers, etc, which was written down by means of scripture (most of the time).

[ilbill220]

Anyone who claims to know what the mind of an entity with a mind infinitely more complicated is thinking is crazy and/or a liar, e.g., Benny Hinn, etc.

[AlRasuwl]

Exactly, and that is just what people like this guy do when they start telling other people what X means and what Y means.

They claim to have knowledge that others do not have, and by virtue of their long beard and silly hat decide what is or is not acceptable for other people to do.

[ilbill220]

I would not say that people like this man claim to know what God is thinking, but what is meant by the scriptures and teachings of the holy. I would not say he takes it far enough to know the mind of an entity with a mind extremely complicated is thinking. I doubt those who claim that things are true that are not supported by scripture or the holy and people that do son in the name of Jesus or God, or something like that.

[AlRasuwl]

"Doesn't claim to know what God is thinking"

No, *was* thinking.

He has decided he is an authority on "what God means" when you read X,Y, or Z in the Bible. Considering everyone is limited to the same input what makes this man more qualified to judge God's intentions?

[ilbill220]

Ah, now I see your point, and I do not think I can answer your question. I guess it does not matter what this man says God means, it only really matters whether you believe him or not. If his teachings agree with your common sense and are supported by scripture. I am not sure if he is any more qualified, from one perspective he could be more qualified, since he is an archbishop and is probably more Biblically holy than most of the world's population. The choice is up to you to believe or not.

[ilbill220]

So really it doesn't matter, but if you decide to not believe his teachings, why not disbelieve all other teachings by Christians; why not disbelieve teachings by the saints, apostles, or even the teachings Jesus Christ? If you do believe in the teachings of the saints, apostles, and Jesus Christ, you might as well consider this man's teachings. I'm not saying all his words are true and he is a definite source of knowledge.

[ilbill220]

But if his teachings are supported by scripture and your common sense, I think you might as well consider them. Well, I think we've arrived at a conclusion. That's pretty much it I guess, we're not really sure of anything, only from a certain perspective is he more qualified, but for believers, his teachings make sense, and they are supported by scripture and the teachings Christ, the saints, the apostles, and the early church fathers. I think we've arrived at a conclusion; like to add anything?

[AlRasuwl]

Well you see there you are making an assumption that the people who wrote the scriptures also knew what was going on in the mind of God.

They were written by men, and then another man reads them and forms his perception of what is in God's mind based on someone else's perception of what was in God's mind thousands of years ago.

[ilbill220]

Good point, I am making that assumption. The only reason I am doing so, is because those who wrote the scriptures had a connection to Jesus Christ, who is God, so he would know. But then you or someone else could assume that Jesus never existed and was a fictional story made up based on astronomy. So you would have to believe Jesus is the son of God, and would know. I'm not going to leave out the possibility that some might have doctored the scriptures though.

[AlRasuwl]

Actually you are wrong. The people who wrote the scriptures never met Jesus in their lives. They were writing down stories which had been taught to in their communities based on a set of religious beliefs that had been brought to them by people who claim to have met Jesus.

In addition, these scriptures were canonicised in 325AD by the roman emperor Constantine, who decided to include scriptures by Paul who claims to have had a vision while all alone in which it was made clear Jesus was God.

[nojoso]

The canonization of Scripture did not happen in 325 (Council of Nicea) as you say. It actually happened later at the Council of Carthage (419) which is after Constantine's death. Constantine cannot be credited with choosing the books of the Bible or define Christianity but he helped the spread Christianity by establishing peace in the Empire.

[AlRasuwl]

If you are correct then it only goes to strengthen my argument.

1: The people who wrote the bible never met Jesus.

2: What went in, and what did not was decided by a committee.

3: Everything that went in was via a chain of oral transmission and cannot be considered reliable.

One thing you can be sure of with oral transmission is that good people will become more good, bad people will become more evil, and amazing stories will become more amazing.

[nojoso]

I don't think you consider any tradition credible. You say that oral tradition cannot be  considered reliable but neither do you trust the codified canon. Do you want God to knock on your front door and tell you the Gospel? You'd find a reason to disbelieve even then. The apostles and martyrs didn't suffer and die for some false myth but for the Faith which has demonstrated the power of God for 2000 years. Study Orthodox Church history, get a more balanced perspective.

[AlRasuwl]

What is wrong with requiring evidence? Why is belief in something without ANY evidence considered a virtue?

Is that how you behave when you buy a 2nd hand car? "It's okay guv, have faith, it works, no need to test drive it"

And yet here you are dedicating your life to something, what's wrong with expecting evidence?

The Bible is merely a book, any human can write a book so why should anyone believe it is not from mere humans?

[fmayer1507]

Outstanding! These are the kinds of lessons that our Children need in Sunday School.

[ChuckMartel]

Are those gunshots I hear in the background at 1:02 1:40 and 6:31?

[allsaintsmonastery]

Halloween fireworks, actually. We only have gunshots (shotgun blanks) when the bears come into the neighbouring farm cornfields in summer. Usually, there are a dozen or more bears in the field, and there is a noise cannon that fires periodically in order to drive them out.

[skanick82]

Master bless,

I know that "limbo" has been disgarded, but I believe Purgatory is still an official Roman Catholic dogma. Unofficially, among the often poorly catechised layfolk, anything seems to go. To be fair, we're not completely immune from this phenomenon.

[allsaintsmonastery]

Indeed; we have the heresy of Aerial Toll Houses floating around to such a degree that there is now a Toll House Cult within the Orthodox Church.

[MrGriegos]

Greetings in Christ,

Are the Toll Houses considered heresy because they are viewed literally or are there other reasons?

[allsaintsmonastery]

Dr Harakas, the dean of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary determined that it was a heresy because it diametrically contradicts major doctrines of the Orthodox Church. Another problem is that almost all the "proof texts" that tollers offer have no relationship whatsoever to toll houses or the gross doctrines that go with the teaching.

[MrGriegos]

Greetings in Christ,

But what specifically does Dr. Harakas compare between the "toll houses" and Orthodox Doctrine? In your video about the Toll Houses you did make a note of the similarities between Gnosticism and the Toll Houses, but without explicit examples.

Good elder, can you please clarify this issue for me?

Are the Toll Houses a heresy because of similarities to Gnosticism or because they are outright antithetical beliefs apart from Orthodoxy? Or a mixing of the two?

[MrGriegos]

Correction: WIthout explicit examples and explanation.

[allsaintsmonastery]

One of the problems is that sin is always seen as a "thou shalt not," and forget that there are also many things that we are taught "thou shalt" or "you should." Chapter 25 of Matthew's Gospel, for examle.

[ilbill220]

I agree, I continually hear those who are not Christian, when explaining some of the differences between Christianity and their religion, point out that their religion is more of an "active" religion, meaning they feel that their religion is more about what you should do, rather then what you shouldn't. Although Christianity has both "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots". I guess the thou shalts, just slip heads unnoticabely, like sand through your fingers. I bet you can tell I like similes. =)

[ilbill220]

Sorry, *slips through their heads*