Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Article Two

Expand Messages
  • KarolineLouise@aol.com
    Article 2: Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man. The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      "Article 2: Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.

      The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men
      "

      -----------------------


      Thanks Kate for posting this.
      As I promised a little while ago, I'll do my best to 'translate' it into more accessible English.

      I think what Article 2 is saying is that God 'fathered' Christ in his mother's womb, and that from this moment, Christ was a fusion of humanity and divinity - both God and Man.

      It then goes on to say that Christ was crucified and died in order to be a sacrifice for human sin, both 'original sin' - that is the inevitable sinfulness we all have for being born of a sex act and being human - and also the individual sins that people commit while they are alive.

      And that's about it really.  I won't make any commentary until we've all had a chance to absorb this stuff.

      Karoline
    • AnisaT@aol.com
      In a message dated 03/11/2001 12:36:55 GMT Standard Time, KarolineLouise@aol.com writes:
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 03/11/2001 12:36:55 GMT Standard Time,
        KarolineLouise@... writes:

        <<
        I think what Article 2 is saying is that God 'fathered' Christ in his
        mother's womb, and that from this moment, Christ was a fusion of humanity
        and
        divinity - both God and Man.

        It then goes on to say that Christ was crucified and died in order to be a
        sacrifice for human sin, both 'original sin' - that is the inevitable
        sinfulness we all have for being born of a sex act and being human - and
        also
        the individual sins that people commit while they are alive.

        And that's about it really. I won't make any commentary until we've all had
        a chance to absorb this stuff.

        Karoline
        >>
        Thanks Karoline,

        A fairly good summary. As the list can see, it is difficult to seperate out
        the articles and the analysis that follows.

        I think that the main issue of Church Dogma that highlights this is the edict
        of the Council of Trent (1563) that states, following on from what you said,
        that basically, because Christ's presence on earth was a union between God
        and Man not 'born of sin' (i.e. sexual communion), that this affirms the idea
        of 'original sin'... hence the concept of Baptismal Regeneration etc.

        I hope those interested in all this will note along the way the
        'coincidental' way that a certain period in Church history keeps raising
        itself? I'm talking about roughly the Tudor period in England. The
        reformation and shortly after (from the reign of Henry the VIII to the end of
        the Elizabethan period - the era of Shakespeare and others in whom Carroll
        showed a slightly more than mild interest).

        John Tufail
      • Kate Lyon
        Is there much difference between baptism and the 16th century ploy of buying indugences? James - not going to go there, but you may or may not know that in
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          'Is there much difference between baptism and the 16th century ploy of
          buying
          indugences?'

          James - not going to go there, but you may or may not know that in early
          days the baptismal ceremony contained the exorcism rite.

          Kate
        • mikeindex@aol.com
          James, I ve told you once already that this discussion is about religion in relation to Charles Dodgson and the 39 Articles - it is NOT an invitation for
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment


            James,
            I've  told you once already that this discussion is about religion in relation to Charles Dodgson and the 39 Articles - it is NOT an invitation for anyone to begin airing their own relgious views or attacking any creeds or dogmas.

            I'm deleting both your posts which fall into this category, and if any more turn up from anyone they will get the same treatment.  Take up Kate's invitation to talk to her offlist.  And please, don't do this again.  Though anything you have to say about Dodgson and religion or any other subject will be welcomed as usual.

            Mike
          • Kate Lyon
            ... Further to this, my understanding is that one was seen as divine decree whereas the other clearly was not - though it may have been represented as such.
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > 'Is there much difference between baptism and the 16th century ploy of
              > buying indugences?'

              Further to this, my understanding is that one was seen as divine decree
              whereas the other clearly was not - though it may have been represented as
              such. Kate
            • james
              on 6/11/01 9:00 pm, mikeindex@aol.com at mikeindex@aol.com wrote: James, I ve told you once already that this discussion is about religion in relation to
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Re: [lewiscarroll] Article Two on 6/11/01 9:00 pm, mikeindex@... at mikeindex@... wrote:



                James,
                I've  told you once already that this discussion is about religion in relation to Charles Dodgson and the 39 Articles - it is NOT an invitation for anyone to begin airing their own relgious views or attacking any creeds or dogmas.

                I'm deleting both your posts which fall into this category, and if any more turn up from anyone they will get the same treatment.  Take up Kate's invitation to talk to her offlist.  And please, don't do this again.  Though anything you have to say about Dodgson and religion or any other subject will be welcomed as usual.

                Mike

                to unsubscribe  send a blank email to: lewiscarroll-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

                GOOD EVENING MIKE, I HEEDED TO YOUR COMMENTS LAST TIME, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I CONTRAVIENED ANYONES BELIEF'S THIS TIME. IF YOU ARE SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT 2 OF MY POST ARE WORTH DELETING THE PREHAPS I COULD POSSIBLY REMIND YOU THAT WE ARE ATCUALLY IN THE 21ST CENTURY AND NOT IN THE 16TH.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.