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

[beamishboy]

So, this part of scriptures doesnt matter?

She prophecied that ALL generations [of the followers of her Son] would call her blessed.

O yea, thats exactly what she meant.

How come you don't see it? We are agreed the "blessed" can mean "happy". See my earlier post on the Greek words. What she says is "All generations will say I'm happy". But the RCs change the meaning of "blessing" through the centuries into something we are now more familiar with than a mere "happy".

That statement is not a prophecy or a command. It's a statement of her present mood. She was happy. You wrote in a post after the one I quote above if she was speaking the truth. Again, you miss the point. Of course she spoke the truth about her feelings - that she was happy.

 

[beamishboy]

ya know, the same ECFs who attended the Council that the Holy Spirit moved to select the canon, and who venerated those who walked with Christ, His mother, and Paul had the opportunity to alter the texts of the didn't. Likewise Constantine, who commissioned the first "mass production" of the same. The ECFs are consulted when teasing apart the words in the NT becauseitwaswrittenlikethisandgreekhasprefixesandsuffixesthatalsoooklikewordssoitcanbedifficulttoevenrightlydividethewordsthemselves.

if indeed the EO is so debased in interpreting a text that was written in (in some cases) their native language less than 400 years out why trust them ? And if there was some "Constantinian conspiracy", why not alter the text. The same, if the EO teachings on Mary were so far off the text, why not alter it to suit their "purposes" ?

It is because the NT is reliable that we can turn to it to see what the apostles and the writers of the NT thought of Mary. Nothing. I have already detailed in my earlier posts the total absence of anything about her everywhere except the gospels when she's only mentioned in relation to Jesus and usually to show she missed his point the way Nicodemus missed Jesus' point on being born again.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I have already detailed in my earlier posts the total absence of anything about her everywhere except the gospels...

Do you mean, absence of her in the rest of the Scriptures? Because the early Christian writings reflect a great deal upon Mary and her relationship to Christ, and how she is a role model to other Christians because of her perfect obedience to Christ.

 

[beamishboy]

I think we should excise such fluff from the NT

The conversation between the two women is not fluff. It's wrong to say so. It shows the state of mind Mary was in. She was not a reluctant vessel for God's use. She was happy and declared herself to be so. The entire scene was one of jubilation within a family. It's a lovely family scene. It's not prophecy except for what the other chap said which prophesied the crucifixion but as far as the two women's conversation went, it was a statement of the family atmosphere and Mary's happiness.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear Thekla,

Thank you for some excellent posts, but when we are told that St. Elizabeth had no idea St. Mary was pregnant despite St. Luke's testimony, words fail.

Peace,

Anglian

I never once said that. I think it was an inadvertent slip when MamaZ wrote that. Why are you harping on a minor slip when there are more serious errors to look at?

 

[Thekla]

How come you don't see it? We are agreed the "blessed" can mean "happy". See my earlier post on the Greek words. What she says is "All generations will say I'm happy". But the RCs change the meaning of "blessing" through the centuries into something we are now more familiar with than a mere "happy".

That statement is not a prophecy or a command. It's a statement of her present mood. She was happy. You wrote in a post after the one I quote above if she was speaking the truth. Again, you miss the point. Of course she spoke the truth about her feelings - that she was happy.

I'm not sure I follow you - specifically that makarios exclusively denotes a "jolly mood". Is this from the Greek you derive an exclusive meaning, or from the use of the word in the NT ?

 

[beamishboy]

frankly, since the ECFs and all their teachings are so debased, we should toss out the texts we have of the NT and go back to the original documents penned by the hands of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. Cause everyone knows the ECFs belonged to the same bunch as the scribes who copied them

The Bible is not the property of the ECFs. The fact that the Bible exists today is no guarantee that the ECFs were not capable of making mistakes.

It is a credit to them that despite their practices, they did not change the words of the canonical books which show a shocking absence of anything even remotely suggestive of Mary veneration.

But we can't say the same about the ECF writings. They are not held to be canonical or sacred and scribes do make convenient changes. It's for this reason that I personally would not depend on ECF writings. What if Marian veneration passages were added into the writings by scribes. They didn't dare touch the NT because it's the word of God but they sure didn't treat ECF writings that way.

For this reason, I would not accuse the ECFs of heresy. We know that not one of the original manuscripts of the ECFs has survived that dealt favourably with Mary veneration. It's safer to look only at those books that the scribes didn't dare really to change.

 

[beamishboy]

Dear MamaZ,

If you read my signature you will see the answer to your question - and that St. Elizabeth knew St. Mary was pregnant.

Is it Protestant tradition to persist in error?

Peace,

Anglian

No, it is not. I'm tempted to throw the same question back to you. Is it RC and Orthodox tradition to persist in error?

I have already stated that I do not accept that Elizabeth didn't know Mary was pregnant but you continue to harp on someone's slip probably because there's nothing else you can pin on. Don't forget - it's Protestant tradition to be true to the Word of God at all costs and we are quick to chuck out tradition if it conflicts with the Word of God which is more than we can say for most people.

 

[beamishboy]

Correct me if i am wrong, but SHE said 'ALL generations SHALL call ME blessed.'
Again, either she was telling the truth, or she was lying and not filled with the Holy Spirit.

She was happy?
Not only she, my friend, but Jesus was happy to be loved and cared for by her. HE created her for this purpose. He loved her immensely, to which is why He created her to His specifications.

Now tell me, if you are rightly dividing the word of God thru truth...
DID or did not Mary say [not a suggestion mind you]
THAT ALL generations shall call her blessed....

She made a prophecy to that which the followers of what her Son would do.

NOW - either she was not telling the truth or she was.

AND why would St Luke note this, if it was a mere insignificance??

She was talking about her state of mind. It's like I tell you. "Wow, all adults will think highly of the beamishboy's maturity after reading his posts." It shows the state of my mind - I'm proud of my maturity. It's neither a command nor a prophecy.

 

[beamishboy]

Protestant tradition is to stiffen the neck and never admit to error; they are infallible personally, unlike the Pope, who is only so when he pronounces ex cathedra.

Again, Protestant personal infallibility.

Peace,

Anglian

No, Anglian. RC and Orthodox tradition is to subject God's Word to their own tradition and where there is a conflict, they stretch the interpretation of God's word until it is unrecognisable.

Infallibility is not our concept. It was created by the pope who kidnapped the Jewish boy in Italy and turned him into a priest, disallowing his natural parents to take him back again. That is a criminal act but that's for another thread. Do you know what I'm talking about or do you want me to give you a link?

 

[beamishboy]

Maybe because someone brought it up who opposes the idea of Mary being special.

Christian history - does involve Mary.
Its a sub-topic along the lines, i suppose.

Who really cares what the ECF's had to say? <~~I do.

Those same folks who don't care - are using the canon the ecf's put together.
So - isnt that ironic?

I mean you said you dont read them... but everytime you pick up scriptures, you are reading what they put together for scriptures...you are reading what you consider truth, but God entrusted to THEM... thru being led all those years [and continues onwards as such] to KNOW what scriptures meant - thru Tradition - or i hate to tell you this - they wouldnt have a clue what was correct or wrong.
See?

So do you care about their POV? Or not?

This is the word of our Lord. Thanks be to God.


Luke 11:27-28 (New International Version

27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."

28He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

 

[beamishboy]

Dear LLOJ,

I am sorry it is so hard for Protestants to admit the plain reading of the words of St. Luke, but since it is, I shall let it go.

It would have been nice if MamaZ could have found it in her to admit her error in saying St. Elizabeth did not know the Virgin was pregnant or where the word 'blessed' was used, but it is clearly next to impossible for those convinced of their own infallible reading to admit error.

Well, we none of us like to do that, and we are all sinners, so I shall let that go too. If you read back, you'll see that the concentration of the Blessed Theotokos did not come from the Orthodox or the Catholics.

I fail to understand the Protestant obsession with trying to denigrate the Blessed Theotokos, it sounds very Freudian.

Peace,

Anglian

No, Anglian. We're not picking on Mary. She's hardly featured at all in the NT. She was there to give birth to Jesus but apart from one or two scenes, mainly to forward the teaching of the gospels about Christ (and not Mary), she is otherwise ABSENT.

Do you treat Mary's mother the same way? She's after all the Grandmother of God.

I would oppose just as much if you elevate Paul or Peter or John or anybody to the same dizzy heights that you have elevated Mary.

 

[Thekla]

I must not have been clear, as your response seems to skip the point.

The Bible is not the property of the ECFs. The fact that the Bible exists today is no guarantee that the ECFs were not capable of making mistakes.

I don't recall stating either point.

It is a credit to them that despite their practices, they did not change the words of the canonical books which show a shocking absence of anything even remotely suggestive of Mary veneration.

how can you verify your assertion that they did not ?

But we can't say the same about the ECF writings. They are not held to be canonical or sacred and scribes do make convenient changes.

it is not the scribal copying of the ECFs that I refer to; instead, the scribes were in the same Churches that the ECFs belonged to. What historically verifiable evidence can you provide that Byzantine etc scribes copied faithfully the NT writings ?

It's for this reason that I personally would not depend on ECF writings. What if Marian veneration passages were added into the writings by scribes. They didn't dare touch the NT because it's the word of God but they sure didn't treat ECF writings that way.

we are discussing the NT writings, not the ECFs. The relationship of the ECFs to the text of the NT includes quotation of the NT which has been used (even now) to elucidate some of the more dense passages - dividing words, providing grammatical gloss, etc.

For this reason, I would not accuse the ECFs of heresy. We know that not one of the original manuscripts of the ECFs has survived that dealt favourably with Mary veneration. It's safer to look only at those books that the scribes didn't dare really to change.

the point has repeatedly been made in this and related threads that the ECFs and Constantine altered Christianity. In such an atmosphere, why would a scribe - especially those who adhered to the teachings of the Church of the region (pretty much all of them) - fear to change words in the NT ?

 

[Thekla]

No, Anglian. RC and Orthodox tradition is to subject God's Word to their own tradition and where there is a conflict, they stretch the interpretation of God's word until it is unrecognisable.

Infallibility is not our concept. It was created by the pope who kidnapped the Jewish boy in Italy and turned him into a priest, disallowing his natural parents to take him back again. That is a criminal act but that's for another thread. Do you know what I'm talking about or do you want me to give you a link?

then there is certainly no reasonable justification for mentioning it here

 

[Thekla]

No, Anglian. We're not picking on Mary. She's hardly featured at all in the NT. She was there to give birth to Jesus but apart from one or two scenes, mainly to forward the teaching of the gospels about Christ (and not Mary), she is otherwise ABSENT.

Do you treat Mary's mother the same way? She's after all the Grandmother of God.

I would oppose just as much if you elevate Paul or Peter or John or anybody to the same dizzy heights that you have elevated Mary.

in the US (at least) there is both academic and critical recognition of a genre and device known as "Exploitation" - in sum, it refers to a characteristic style which seeks to provoke an emotional response in the viewer or reader -- in the vernacular it can be described as "pushing someone's buttons". Exploitation seeks to thrill (negatively or positively) rather than inform and is noted to be shallow in nature. The descriptive "dizzy heights" is either hyperbolic or a misrepresentation. Either way, repeated use of such characterizations is "exploitative".

I think you can do better.

 

[Thekla]

The conversation between the two women is not fluff. It's wrong to say so. It shows the state of mind Mary was in. She was not a reluctant vessel for God's use. She was happy and declared herself to be so. The entire scene was one of jubilation within a family. It's a lovely family scene. It's not prophecy except for what the other chap said which prophesied the crucifixion but as far as the two women's conversation went, it was a statement of the family atmosphere and Mary's happiness.

was Luke family ?

 

[beamishboy]

“Liturgy of St. Chrysostom” (so called), where it is said: “We offer to Thee this reasonable service for those who have fallen asleep in faith,…patriarchs, apostles, evangelists, martyrs,…and every just one made perfect in the faith: especially our all-holy, undefiled, most blessed Lady, Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary,” etc. But she, they tell us, was assumed into glory, like Christ Himself, and reigns with Him as “Queen of Angels,” etc. See Elucidation II. p. 569.

LINK

Thanks Jack. I am collecting evidence which shows that the concept of assumption is incorrect and something created recently. We know it's a new-fangled idea and your "Liturgy of St Chrysostom" clearly shows that Mary was counted as one of those who died.

But I don't care much for non-canonical works because they have been so badly tampered with.

 

[beamishboy]

AGAIN - co-mediatrix means she was the helper of bringing us the Mediator. Giving birth to Him. He Who reconciles the world to the Father. That is what Mediator means.

Perhaps instead of making comments when in ignorance to a topic, please ask courteously. Will answer...if i am around.

That's good advice to the RCs and Orthodox who have been making scurrilous comments about "Protestant errors" when we know errors belong elsewhere.

Let me courteously ask you about the Redemptrix Cross where Mary appears on it. Vatican has not condemned such crosses and there are many RCs who accept it. In fact I read somewhere that many RCs want the Vatican to accept the Redemptrix Cross as an official dogma. Not condemning it is bad enough to me; you don't need an official stamp.

 

[beamishboy]

Unfortunately, what our Christian ancestors believed is of no consequence to many of the people who have posted here. Neither is it important how our Christian ancestors interpreted the Scriptures. From what people here have said, it would seem that the only thing that is important is how we, NOW, interpret the Scriptures.

I don't understand that line of reasoning. If they believe our Christian ancestors were definitely wrong, what is keeping us from being wrong? We are 1500+ years away from the Patristic period! If there is no way to really, definitively tell of we are truly being led by the Spirit or being led by our own misunderstandings... then I think we're up the creek without a paddle.

Simple. Just find out what the apostles taught and what Jesus taught. This can easily be seen in the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles. It's so voluminous many people haven't even read a tenth of it. If anything is introduced that is not supported by these, forget it.

Many people throw in a red herring when they hear this sort of argument. They try to say that the Trinity is not mentioned in the NT. But that is a most devious deception. We know that it is absolute madness to expect concepts to be given a single word. The NT tells me that Jesus is God. It also specifically tells me that the Holy Spirit is God. We also know from the Bible that God is one. My 13-year-old brain can tell me that with these teachings from the NT, surely God must be in the form of Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and yet these three are God and yet God is one. It tells me this much without giving me the name Trinity - which is not necessary. It's coined by man to explain a heavenly concept but that heavenly concept appears in the NT. If it doesn't appear in the NT, I would reject it totally as so would any Protestant. So please please please don't mention the red herring of Trinity again when anybody replies. It's not very intelligent and I hate to have to repeat myself.

 

[Montalban]

Why is there this compelling need to make her special? What in the Bible makes you so crazy about her?

Why is it you're so determined to advertise yourself as one who will forego serious debate and instead only cherry-pick?

I asked you for days if you would consider what she did was special - giving birth to Jesus. You ignored that.

Now you ask what was so special.

Is this the way you're taught to debate? Ignore then ask the very same question asked of you?

Who else has given birth to Jesus? When he was on the cross he commended her into the special care of John. And you turn around and ask "what was special?"

Is this the best you can do?