Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[Montalban]

As he broke the commandment on the Sabbath? As he broke Mosaic law to stone adulterous women?

Really? So Jesus was saying "Don't honour your mother"?

Besides, what he did was not a violation of the fifth commandment. He, as God, has the right to send Mary to hell if she didn't repent of her sins and accept Jesus. Are you saying that Jesus has no power to condemn Mary if she should, of her own free will, choose not to believe in Him and reject Him as Saviour? Your mistake is a very human mistake. You forget Jesus is God and Mary but a poor sinner forgiven by Jesus and cleansed by Him.

Are you saying Mary sinned and he was condemning her?

What was the sin she had committed?

 

[Montalban]

Your missing my point seems endless. You folks who are used to venerating Mary have totally misunderstood her and her relationship with Jesus. You take any slight by Jesus on his mother as a breach of the fifth commandment but that is clearly not so.

You keep saying he slighted her. What did she do that deserved this slight?

Should Jesus send Mary to hell if she exercises her free will not to believe in Him? Of course he should and would.

So Mary didn't believe in Jesus. Wow, and you say we're misreading the Bible. Where did you get that from?

Don't forget that Mary is a poor human sinner in need of grace from Christ. Does Jesus chastise Mary? You bet he does.

For what reason? I thought you were suggesting that he was chastising the crowd for praising Mary - correcting them that they shouldn't be saying she should be blessed.

Unable to prove that you now invent that he was in fact chastising her.

You simply compound error upon error

When are you going to answer my questions?

Was Mary blessed?

Did she do anything 'extra-ordinary' in bearing Jesus?

 

[Montalban]

What does this have to do with all being blessed? What does this also have to do with Jesus saying that all who hear and do are my mother brother and sister? For Jesus Kindgom is not of this world and according to the flesh. It is a Spirital kingdom born from the Spirit of God.

It's Beamishboy's invention that Jesus was chastising Mary.

The rebuttal was that he was therefore not 'honouring' her

 

[Montalban]

The beamishboy is second to none [well, mabye except me] in his correction of those that might lead the little flock astray.
I remember this thread where the beamyboy had to correct AV-VET concerning a "deck of cards" and a "pack of cards"

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7252245&page=36
My Bicycle Challenge

Not sure if you're saying that tongue-in-cheek

Only if you take on board his novel invention

The Angel blesses Mary - ignore this.

Others bless Mary - ignore this.

Mary says she'll be blessed throughout the ages - ignore this.

A crowd says Mary will be blessed and Jesus says that those that follow him will be blessed - pretend that this cancels out the previous instances and then invent an incident of Jesus chastising his mother (for not believing in him???)

You're easily impressed if you accept that sinuous application of logic

 

[beamishboy]

I'm not changing the words. You are. I've asked you is Mary blessed? Did she do anything 'special'? You ignore that. You invented the contradiction, not me.

I didn't invent any contradiction. I only see contradiction between Mary veneration and the clear position taken by Jesus and the words of the New Testament.

You ask me "Is Mary blessed?" Before I begin, I need to wean you off the wrong aura that has surrounded some biblical words. Over the centuries, the RC church has redefined through its own tradition words such as "blessed". The beamishboy will guide you through the use of this word. Hehe.

You guys keep referring to Luke 1:48 where Mary says "all generations shall call me blessed". The word "blessed" in this verse is different from the word blessed elsewhere in that part of Luke. It's a different Koine Greek word. I'm reading from my Nestle Greek text but I can't reproduce the Greek letters here so I'll use transliteration but my spelling will be wonky because my eta and epsilon will look alike ("e") as so will my omicron and omega ("o") and other such letters. In verse 48, Mary used the word "makarisusin" which is conjugated and is different from "eulogemene". The first word (used in verse 48 by Mary) means blessed in the sense of happy or fortunate (See Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, page 140). In other threads, I have translated verse 48 as Mary telling her cousin, "Oh guess what Elizabeth! I'm so happy! All generations will say I'm happy and so I am!!!" That would be the BCT or the Beamishboy's Contemporary Translation.

But the RC church took the translation "blessed", ignored the differences in meaning between the two Greek words and built up a whole new dogma based on something like this!! That is in my opinion totally wrong.

 

[Thekla]

the same word for "blessed" (makarios) is the one Jesus uses in the Beatitudes

you should also compare the use of both terms throughout the New Testament

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You guys keep referring to Luke 1:48 where Mary says "all generations shall call me blessed". The word "blessed" in this verse is different from the word blessed elsewhere in that part of Luke. It's a different Koine Greek word.

Here ya go. This word in verse 48 is generally translated as "happy"

http://www.scripture4all.org/

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Luke 1:42 kai <2532> {AND} anefwnhsen <400> (5656) {CRIED OUT} fwnh <5456> {WITH A VOICE} megalh <3173> {LOUD} kai <2532> {AND} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID,} euloghmenh <2127> (5772) {BLESSED [ART]} su <4771> {THOU} en <1722> {AMONG} gunaixin <1135> {WOMEN,} kai <2532> {AND} euloghmenoV <2127> (5772) {BLESSED} o <3588> {THE} karpoV <2590> thV <3588> {FRUIT} koiliaV <2836> sou <4675> {OF THY WOMB.}

Luke 1:48 oti <3754> {FOR} epebleyen <1914> (5656) {HE LOOKED} epi <1909> {UPON} thn <3588> {THE} tapeinwsin <5014> thV <3588> {HUMILIATION} doulhV <1399> autou <846> {OF HIS BONDMAID;} idou <2400> (5628) {LO} gar <1063> {FOR,} apo <575> tou <3588> {FROM} nun <3568> {HENCEFORTH} makariousin <3106> (5692) me <3165> {WILL COUNT ME BLESSED} pasai <3956> ai <3588> {ALL} geneai <1074> {GENERATIONS.}

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In other threads, I have translated verse 48 as Mary telling her cousin, "Oh guess what Elizabeth! I'm so happy! All generations will say I'm happy and so I am!!!" That would be the BCT or the Beamishboy's Contemporary Translation.

Just when I think I have heard everything on CF I see this

 

[beamishboy]

Really? So Jesus was saying "Don't honour your mother"?

No, Jesus is saying "I am God and I chastise whomsoever I love".

Are you saying Mary sinned and he was condemning her?

What was the sin she had committed?

The sin of non-belief. In the earlier part of Jesus' ministry, Mary and Jesus' family did not understand His mission. We recall the scene when Jesus was discoursing with the Temple priests. Mary and Joseph went to get him for they thought he was lost. His reply to them was "Know ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" He was chiding them gently for forgetting his true mission.

In one gospel, we are told that Jesus' people thought he was crazy and sought to take him home. In Matthew 12, we read that Jesus' mother and brothers were waiting for him outside. His reply to his disciples in verse 48 is clear.

The touching scene at the cross tells us that Mary was then a true believer. There is no doubt that his brother James later accepted Jesus as his Lord as so did Mary.

There's no harm saying Mary repented and became a believer. Come on, she's human like the rest of us and kneels to Jesus as much as we should too.

 

[beamishboy]

Here ya go. This word in verse 48 is generally translated as "happy"

http://www.scripture4all.org/

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Thanks! I'm pleased to see that you use the BCT too! Hehe.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks! I'm pleased to see that you use the BCT too! Hehe.

Um, no.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I have never, in my years of studying the Scriptures academically, heard it posited that Mary & Joseph were unbelievers. Jesus' brothers, certainly - in the Gospel of John they make fun of him around Sukkoth, I think it is - but never Mary & Joseph. And no, the professors I studied under were not Catholic.

Where did you get that from, BB? Just your own readings of the Scriptures? Did you find that hypothesis in a commentary, an encyclopedia, or something? I'm curious.

 

[Montalban]

I didn't invent any contradiction. I only see contradiction between Mary veneration and the clear position taken by Jesus and the words of the New Testament.

I've asked you two questions you continue to ignore.

 

[Montalban]

No, Jesus is saying "I am God and I chastise whomsoever I love".

Again you just plough on regardless of what has been said.

Where is Jesus admonishing her? You changed this too.

By the way, your 'contemporary' translation simply confirms people's opinions that you think you're infallible.

Now you're translating the NT.

 

[Rick Otto]

good work, bb.

 

[beamishboy]

Again you just plough on regardless of what has been said.

Where is Jesus admonishing her? You changed this too.

By the way, your 'contemporary' translation simply confirms people's opinions that you think you're infallible.

Now you're translating the NT.

The beamishboy thanks you for your act of veneration to him.

The BCT is not infallible. You're mistaken there. The beamishboy is prepared to accept that he may have made some minor errors in his translation. It's not so much the translation as it's the uncertainty which manuscript is preferable and which codex he should choose from. This is the usual problem all translators face. The beamishboy is no exception.

But the BCT is more for teenagers because it's in contemporary language. The angel greets Mary with a "Howdy!!!" Some of you may not like the style. And the sermon on the Mount begins with "Howdy Folksies!!!" The triple exclamation mark is to show friendliness.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

Your own Church's translation of the relevant verses is the one I cited; so now you will not even accept the way your own Church has read these words for centuries.

The list is getting long: the Archbishop of Canterbury (who venerates icons of the Virgin); the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Elizabeth; The Blessed Theotokos herself; the Holy Tradition of the Church, including St. Luke and ECFs such as St. Cyril of Alexandria; more than a billion Catholics; more than half a billion Orthodox; all these are wrong and you are right.

Hubris perchance?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Beamishboy,

Your own Church's translation of the relevant verses is the one I cited; so now you will not even accept the way your own Church has read these words for centuries.

The list is getting long: the Archbishop of Canterbury (who venerates icons of the Virgin); the Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Elizabeth; The Blessed Theotokos herself; the Holy Tradition of the Church, including St. Luke and ECFs such as St. Cyril of Alexandria; more than a billion Catholics; more than half a billion Orthodox; all these are wrong and you are right.

Hubris perchance?

Peace,

Anglian

My dear Anglian,

I do not accept your generalisation of people's opinions. I do not accept your statement about what my church accepts. Neither do I accept your statement about what Luke accepts.

In my opinion the list of people you don't accept is also quite long. You don't accept Luke's testimony. You don't accept our Lord Himself. He has already told you what to do about your hangup for who's blessed and who's not. He says those who obey Him are blessed. You don't accept Mary herself. She says at the wedding at Cana to do everything the Lord tells you. So if you reject Jesus' words, you are rejecting Mary's too. By rejecting the words in Luke, you are also rejecting effectively the canon and by doing so, you are actually rejecting all the early Christians. Oh my! The list is indeed very long!!!!

 

[Anglian]

Dear Beamishboy,

You eisegesis continues. You have not shown that Our Lord's comments to his earthly family mean He is disowning them; you have stated your own belief. You have not shown that Our Lord contradicts the Spirit speaking through St. Elizabeth; you have simply asserted it. You have never addressed what your own archbishop has to say about the Blessed Theotokos in his beautiful little book on icons of her (yes, he wrote a whole book about icons of her); you have done nothing but reiterate your own views.

We know these, They are not even accepted by all those in your own Church, especially by those who say should not even be part of it, namely the High Church and Anglo-Catholic parts. Your views remain just that, your own. You have failed to provide any proof that any early Christian accepted your view of the Blessed Theotokos.

Indeed, you have failed to provide proof for anything - save your own belief in your own personal infallibility.

My views are those of my Church and can be traced back to what the Holy Spirit told St. Elizabeth; they have been held by millions for nearly two thousand years; that is the best guide that I am not being misled by my own sinful nature. Your assurance for that would be what?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

what Jesus was doing when Mary came and stood outside and they told Jesus that they were there was to distinguish that His Kingdom is not fleshly but Spiritual and that in the Spirit we are all the same one not being higher than the other for all have been saved the same way.. Through the cross of Christ. For we are not to know any man according to the flesh..