Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

[Oblio]

Hi. It is still a Catholic doctrine to me.

It may be to you, but history proves you wrong if you think it originated with or is unique to Catholics.

No longer can it be disbelieved just because you think it is something Roman Catholics made up

 

[Fireinfolding]

Heres how some of these words are distingished between each other and contrasted with one another. They may varry depending on which bible one is using but they should be used in accordance with the same rule of thumb (nonetheless)


Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luke 1:58 And her neighbors and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

The same word used above for "cousins" is used here as "kinsmen" but is compared against "brethren" so its a different word

Luke 14:12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy freinds, nor thy brethren, neither thy *kinsmen*, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

Cousins, and "kinsfolks" are the same but contrasted against "brethren" not the same word

Luke 21:16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and *kinsfolks*, and freinds; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

2Titus 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

Acts 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

So we have

"cousin"= "cousins"= "kinsmen"= "kinsfolks" (this word is not used in relation to the Lords brothers)

"brethren"

"neighbors"

"freinds"

"parents"

"grandmother"

"mother"

"daughters"

"sisters" (below)


Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And THEY WERE OFFENDED AT HIM.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Are there any I missed in relation to the Lord?

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi. It is still a Catholic doctrine to me.
Btw, has the church studied on the Melchizedek of the Bible as much as they do the "Mary".

Hebrews 7:1 For this Malkiy-Tsedeq , king of Salem, priest of God Most High, who did meet Abraham turning back from the smiting of the kings, and did bless him, ............ 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, and being made like to the Son of God, doth remain a priest continually.

It may be to you, but history proves you wrong if you think it originated with or is unique to Catholics.

No longer can it be disbelieved just because you think it is something Roman Catholics made up

Oh sorry. I was under the assumption there were only Catholics after Peter. My bad.

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spake to the multitudes, and to his disciples, 2 saying, `On the seat of Moses sat down the scribes and the Pharisees; 3 all, then, as much as they may say to you to observe, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say, and do not;

reve 16:10 Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues because of the pain.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yes, how odd it is that the first arguments against the PV of the Theotokos arise only in the past century, and then only among modern evangelicals. The denial of her ever virginity is neither based on the history of the Church, nor on Scriptural evidence. It is a belief born and bred of the modern distrust and throwing away of all things Catholic.

The problem with this of course is that with the emergence of the Orthodox Church (both Eastern and Oriental) in Western lands it is becoming obvious that this doctrine is not a Western Roman Catholic invention, but one held in common by all the Apostolic Churches. There can be only one reason for a common belief among these Apostolic Churches, and that is that the belief predated any Schism among them. Three Churches, separate for 1600 years, all believing the exact same thing. In this respect the PV of the Theotokos is on par with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and other orthodox proclamations prior to the 4th Ecumenical council.

So the Church for 1800+ years had it wrong, misread and misheard and miscopied her manuscripts (but not the Bible of course) until American evangelicals with a romaphobic streak straightened us all out.

You have no evidence and no motive for the crime. And if you convict the Church in your mind, what does this say about the veracity of those things she gave you that you choose to accept because they fit your theology ?

Out of reps for now.

The OO, who also is Apostolic was schismed in 400 AD or something also believe the same.

HOW can three CORE Apostolic Churches with one beginning, ALL be wrong?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Out of reps for now.

The OO, who also is Apostolic was schismed in 400 AD or something also believe the same.

HOW can three CORE Apostolic Churches with one beginning, ALL be wrong?

I am just thankfull we have better translations and more Greek/Hebrew resuorces to study from than they did.
Guess my Reps would be higher if I wasn't Scripture only.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

[ISA] Revelation 1:1 [a/an] From/Un-Covering/Veiling[ apo-kaluyiV] ihsou/Yeshuwa` cristou/Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/'elohiym, to show to the bond-servants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness. And He signifies sending out* thru/by the messenger of Him, to the Bondservants of Him, iwannh/Y@howchanan.

 

[Oblio]

I am just thankfull we have better translations and more Greek/Hebrew resuorces to study from than they did.

LOL

Reminds me of when someone chastised St. John Chrysostom for being poor at translating Greek

 

[Fireinfolding]

I am just thankfull we have better translations and more Greek/Hebrew resuorces to study from than they did.
Guess my Reps would be higher if I wasn't Scripture only.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

[ISA] Revelation 1:1 [a/an] From/Un-Covering/Veiling[ apo-kaluyiV] ihsou/Yeshuwa` cristou/Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/'elohiym, to show to the bond-servants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness. And He signifies sending out* thru/by the messenger of Him, to the Bondservants of Him, iwannh/Y@howchanan.

I'd give you "reps" I love others that use scripture only.

I deliberately make myself of NO REPUTATION (turned that bad boy off lol) I just dont think green bars tell me squat about anyone. I mean no offense and Im sure you would agree... but a "cartoon" cross certainly doesnt define whether we are truly pick ours up right?

Lets get real right?

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Oblio]

but a "cartoon" cross certainly doesnt define whether we are truly pick ours up right?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Me too.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I was talking about BOARD "TOYS".

You know... the green bar means "reputation" etc? I know someone who was threatened about losing their cartoon icon with a cross on it (long story). But I told him a "cartoon" cross icon doesnt make you a Christian or determine whether your picking up your cross and following Christ.

I was pointing to colorful cartoon board toys that are simply pictures infused into cyberspace. The real cross is daily. Thats what I meant

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[racer]

Have any of you heard of the theory of the Perpetual Virginity of Joseph? Here's an interesting article:

http://www.osjoseph.org/stjoseph/churchfathers/#CH1

 

[IamAdopted]

Augustine also wrote a book about how if you enjoy intercourse in marriage it is sin.. So this is where this mans mind is.. His book can be read on line..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The denial of her ever virginity is neither based on the history of the Church, nor on Scriptural evidence. It is a belief born and bred of the modern distrust and throwing away of all things Catholic.

I respectfully disagree...


As far as has been shown to me, there is no mention of the teaching - even as just an individual personal opinion - prior to the mid to late Third Century. That, IMHO, is a strong question of the historicity of the dogma.


And the entire questioning here has been the Scriptural evidence, with is zero. I think you've been following this thread, so you must know it's been focused primarily on Scripture and the quest for evidence to support this dogma, something other than "the denominations that teach it, teach it."



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[IamAdopted]

Here is a quick quote from his book..

Augustine said that the pleasure of making love is sinful, even within marriage. If husbands and wives focus on having children while they are making love, and they don't allow themselves to have any pleasure while doing it, then they are free from sin. If they make love in order to have children, and they enjoy doing it, then they commit a venial sin. And if they enjoy making love, and they don't want to have children, then they commit a sin that is as serious as adultery.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Liturgy of Saint James is considered to be the oldest surviving liturgy developed for general use in the Church. Its date of composition is still disputed with some authorities proposing an early date, perhaps ca. AD 60, close to the time of composition of Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Many others, think that it is entirely destitute of any claim to an apostolic origin, and that it belongs to a much later age. On balance the weight of authorities is for a date between mid- and late-third century. An early form is thought to be alluded to by Eusebius of Caesarea in a sermon made around AD 320.

Is that the earliest reference you can find to any allusion to this dogma?

 

[Asinner]

[/color]


Is that the earliest reference you can find to any allusion to this dogma?

The Liturgy of Saint James is considered to be the oldest surviving liturgy developed for general use in the Church. Its date of composition is still disputed with some authorities proposing an early date, perhaps ca. AD 60, close to the time of composition of Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Many others, think that it is entirely destitute of any claim to an apostolic origin, and that it belongs to a much later age. On balance the weight of authorities is for a date between mid- and late-third century. An early form is thought to be alluded to by Eusebius of Caesarea in a sermon made around AD 320.

Eusebius of Caesaria alludes to an early date, as do other authorities and most of Christendom. Certainly there will be those who dismiss it's Apostolic claim . . . Either it was written by James or it wasn't. If it was, then it puts it earlier than some NT books.

Love,
Christina

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

HOW can three...., ALL be wrong?

Could three denominations be wrong about something? Well, I wouldn't categorically and unquestionably assume they could not be.

And since it seems 3 denominations teach this as dogma and (using the popular 30,000 "Protestant denominations" number used by Catholics) 29,997 do not, then could 29,997 be wrong?




I think we need to get back to a discussion of the support for this dogma. After all, no Protestant denomination known to me has any doctrine at all about the number of times Mary and Joseph lovingly shared intimacies within the sacred bonds of Marriage after Jesus was born - we have no teaching at all about the frequency of that, whether it was never or once a year or once a week or 2.6 times per week - we have no dogma about that at all. So, we have nothing here to substantiate. You do. THAT is what it is being sought.




That's my perspective.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah


.

 

[Oblio]

As far as has been shown to me, there is no mention of the teaching - even as just an individual personal opinion - prior to the mid to late Third Century.

Untrue as has been demontrated several times on this thread.

Could three denominations be wrong about something? Well, I wouldn't categorically and unquestionably assume they could not be.

I might add (for those new to the discussion) that the Fathers of the Protestant movement also held to the PV of the Theotokos. It is a minority of modern and postmodern Western Christians (some of whom belong to denominations less than a generation old) that disbelieve what has always been believed by the ancient Church.

 

[Benedicta00]

Here is a quick quote from his book..

Augustine isn't the Church. Augustine doesn't speak for the Church... The Church speaks for the Church.

You are going to have to show us, if we are wanting to represent Catholicism honestly that is, BC, where the Church ever said any such thing?

 

[Benedicta00]

Augustine also wrote a book about how if you enjoy intercourse in marriage it is sin.. So this is where this mans mind is.. His book can be read on line..

so? what does that prove?