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

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel Jesus said [in easier English]

'NO, rather blessed is My Mother BECAUSE she did the will of God.'

What translation is that from?

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

Luke 11:28 autoV <846> {HE} de <1161> {YET} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID,} menounge <3304> {INDEED} makarioi <3107> {HAPPY/BLESSED} oi <3588> {THOSE} akouonteV <191> (5723) {HEARING} ton <3588> {THE} logon <3056> {WORD} tou <3588> {OF THE} qeou <2316> {GOD} kai <2532> {AND} fulassonteV <5442> (5723) {KEEPING/GUARDING} auton <846> {IT.}

Luke 11:28 He yet said "indeed/rather/menounge <3304> happy/blessed/makarioi <3107> those hearing the Word of the God and keeping/guarding/fulassonteV <5442> (5723) it.

 

[beamishboy]

What translation is that from?

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

Luke 11:28 autoV <846> {HE} de <1161> {YET} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID,} menounge <3304> {INDEED} makarioi <3107> {HAPPY/BLESSED} oi <3588> {THOSE} akouonteV <191> (5723) {HEARING} ton <3588> {THE} logon <3056> {WORD} tou <3588> {OF THE} qeou <2316> {GOD} kai <2532> {AND} fulassonteV <5442> (5723) {KEEPING/GUARDING} auton <846> {IT.}

Luke 11:28 He yet said "indeed/rather/menounge <3304> happy/blessed/makarioi <3107> those hearing the Word of the God and keeping/guarding/fulassonteV <5442> (5723) it.

No, he didn't say it was a translation. He says it's the official RC interpretation of that verse. Don't forget, RC theology has it that nobody is allowed to interpret biblical verses. The right to interpret vests exclusively with the leaders of the RC church.

So, when someone says to Jesus "Blessed is the womb that bore thee" and Jesus replies, "No, rather blessed are those who hear the word of God...", the RC church interprets "those" to mean Mary, you as a faithful RC will have to say "Credo" to it without question. If you try to say, "But look at the context and the grammar!" you'll be chided for questioning what is exclusively the domain of the church leaders.

 

[Thekla]

No, he didn't say it was a translation. He says it's the official RC interpretation of that verse. Don't forget, RC theology has it that nobody is allowed to interpret biblical verses. The right to interpret vests exclusively with the leaders of the RC church.

So, when someone says to Jesus "Blessed is the womb that bore thee" and Jesus replies, "No, rather blessed are those who hear the word of God...", the RC church interprets "those" to mean Mary, you as a faithful RC will have to say "Credo" to it without question. If you try to say, "But look at the context and the grammar!" you'll be chided for questioning what is exclusively the domain of the church leaders.

1. is Mary just a "womb and paps" ?
2. did Mary fail to hear the word of God and keep it ?
3. did Christ come to redeem only or soul and spirit or also our body ?
4. is makarios only an emotive state ?

 

[beamishboy]

1. is Mary just a "womb and paps" ?

In common speech (especially in the Middle East where a device called metonymy is widely employed. It's also found in Koine Greek and even in our language. For example we say "the Crown" when we mean the Queen or even the Government. We say "hands" when we mean workers. Anyone will know it's silly to think of "crown" as literally the crown on the queen's head or "hands" to be really the hands only when we look at the context.

Here womb and paps do not really mean only that. Anyone can see that it's again metonymy to mean mother.

2. did Mary fail to hear the word of God and keep it ?

Like every Christian I know, we hear sometimes and obey sometimes and we refuse to hear sometimes and refuse to obey sometimes. Mary is no different. The Bible has said nothing of her to make us think she was any more righteous than others. In fact, in Hebrews where the writer gave a list of "righteous people", Mary was not mentioned. That does not mean she's not righteous. It means she does not stand out as more righteous than others.

The doctrine of veneration of Mary ignores this.

3. did Christ come to redeem only or soul and spirit or also our body ?

I don't see the relevance of this question unless you fail to understand metonymy which I have already explained above. I think the Bible does say that we will be given new and incorruptible bodies.

4. is makarios only an emotive state ?

Whatever it means, there is no idea that a person who is makarios has to be venerated. Luke 11 seems to suggest that the proper attitude to Mary's blessedness/happiness in bearing Jesus then is to keep it at that and to focus rather on getting people (plural) to hear God's word and obey it.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Don't forget, RC theology has it that nobody is allowed to interpret biblical verses. The right to interpret vests exclusively with the leaders of the RC church.

LOL. Honey, you have so much to learn about what the Catholic church actually teaches, versus what you think it teaches.

 

[Thekla]

In common speech (especially in the Middle East where a device called metonymy is widely employed. It's also found in Koine Greek and even in our language. For example we say "the Crown" when we mean the Queen or even the Government. We say "hands" when we mean workers. Anyone will know it's silly to think of "crown" as literally the crown on the queen's head or "hands" to be really the hands only when we look at the context.



Here womb and paps do not really mean only that. Anyone can see that it's again metonymy to mean mother.

please provide other Biblical examples of its use reeople for comparison

Like every Christian I know, we hear sometimes and obey sometimes and we refuse to hear sometimes and refuse to obey sometimes. Mary is no different. The Bible has said nothing of her to make us think she was any more righteous than others. In fact, in Hebrews where the writer gave a list of "righteous people", Mary was not mentioned. That does not mean she's not righteous. It means she does not stand out as more righteous than others.

The doctrine of veneration of Mary ignores this.

please provide evidence based on the Bible, not speculation

I don't see the relevance of this question unless you fail to understand metonymy which I have already explained above. I think the Bible does say that we will be given new and incorruptible bodies.

I do not fail to understand metonymy - instead I would like evidence of a pattern of usage of this device

the Bible is a book you should read

Whatever it means, there is no idea that a person who is makarios has to be venerated. Luke 11 seems to suggest that the proper attitude to Mary's blessedness/happiness in bearing Jesus then is to keep it at that and to focus rather on getting people (plural) to hear God's word and obey it.

you skipped the question; please provide comparative passages which support your understanding of makarios
further, you have not answered my previous post re: the discussion of reverence/veneration/esteem and those who did God's will (not to mention the other issues I raised)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

you skipped the question; please provide comparative passages which support your understanding of makarios

What about the word used for "make merry". I happened to notice this thread on the Eschatology board where this poster claimed that greek word meant to be "married to Christ" Isn't the Greek fun!!!!!

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268578

Originally Posted by zspeedyrabit
And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwell on the earth.
www.biblegateway.com (Holy Bible passages can be easily accessed at this website (KJV is tops)).
Our current view is that make merry signifies to marry christ as in become Christian.


Sounds more like a type of "partying" to me. That word is also used in Reve 18:20 and I recommend ditching the KJV LOL......

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Revelation 11:10 And the ones down dwelling upon the land are rejoicing upon them and are being merry/gladdened/eufranqhsontai <2165> (5701) , and oblations they shall be sending to one another that these, the two prophets, torment the ones down dwelling upon of the land.

Revelation 18:20 ` Be making merry ye/eufrainou <2165> (5744) over her, O heaven, and the Saints, and the Apostles and the prophets, that judges the God the judgement of ye out of her

2165. euphraino from 2095 and 5424; to put (middle voice or passively, be) in a good frame of mind, i.e. rejoice:--fare, make glad, be (make) merry, rejoice.
2095. eu yoo neuter of a primary eus (good); (adverbially) well:--good, well (done).
5424. phren frane probably from an obsolete phrao (to rein in or curb; compare 5420); the midrif (as a partition of the body), i.e. (figuratively and by implication, of sympathy) the feelings (or sensitive nature; by extension (also in the plural) the mind or cognitive faculties):--understanding.

 

[Thekla]

What about the word used for "make merry". I happened to notice this thread on the Eschatology board where this poster claimed that greek word meant to be "married to Christ" Isn't the Greek fun!!!!!

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7268578

Originally Posted by zspeedyrabit
And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwell on the earth.
www.biblegateway.com (Holy Bible passages can be easily accessed at this website (KJV is tops)).
Our current view is that make merry signifies to marry christ as in become Christian.


Sounds more like a type of "partying" to me. That word is also used in Reve 18:20 and I recommend ditching the KJV LOL......

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Revelation 11:10 And the ones down dwelling upon the land are rejoicing upon them and are being merry/gladdened/eufranqhsontai <2165> (5701) , and oblations they shall be sending to one another that these, the two prophets, torment the ones down dwelling upon of the land.

Revelation 18:20 ` Be making merry ye/eufrainou <2165> (5744) over her, O heaven, and the Saints, and the Apostles and the prophets, that judges the God the judgement of ye out of her

2165. euphraino from 2095 and 5424; to put (middle voice or passively, be) in a good frame of mind, i.e. rejoice:--fare, make glad, be (make) merry, rejoice.
2095. eu yoo neuter of a primary eus (good); (adverbially) well:--good, well (done).
5424. phren frane probably from an obsolete phrao (to rein in or curb; compare 5420); the midrif (as a partition of the body), i.e. (figuratively and by implication, of sympathy) the feelings (or sensitive nature; by extension (also in the plural) the mind or cognitive faculties):--understanding.

his posts are always interesting

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

his posts are always interesting

I just hope the atheists don't visit that board

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7255586

Originally Posted by zspeedyrabit Zeke37, Satan is currently in Heavenly places. Ephesians 2:2. Ephesians 6:12. Satan does will not be cast out of Heaven until Revelation 12:9 of which has yet to occur for we are currently in the chapter 11 process of Revelation. Satans Antichrist is currently (07/05/08) in Nevada.


Not unless he is campaining for the Presidency there . Satan has already been cast out of heaven..John 12:30-33 ~ Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.

 

[Gwendolyn]

LOL, Satan in heavenly places... now that's something new...

 

[Montalban]

My dear Jack,

How kind of you to try to have the beamishboy see that his church has a large pro-Rome faction.

That's just you making things up again. The Anglican church does not hold to doctrine because it agrees with Rome, but because it judges that doctrine sound of itself. You simply advertise now that you have no idea about your own church. No wonder you invent translations to scripture.

I note too that whilst you continued to ignore me asking questions about Mary bearing God, you answered someone else who asked similar questions. Why is that?

 

[Montalban]

What happened to admin splitting a post after it reached 100 pages?

 

[Montalban]

What happened to admin splitting a post after it reached 100 pages?

 

[Montalban]

No, he didn't say it was a translation. He says it's the official RC interpretation of that verse. Don't forget, RC theology has it that nobody is allowed to interpret biblical verses. The right to interpret vests exclusively with the leaders of the RC church.

So, when someone says to Jesus "Blessed is the womb that bore thee" and Jesus replies, "No, rather blessed are those who hear the word of God...", the RC church interprets "those" to mean Mary, you as a faithful RC will have to say "Credo" to it without question. If you try to say, "But look at the context and the grammar!" you'll be chided for questioning what is exclusively the domain of the church leaders.

Then your best argument is "They have a translation. I have a translation that's different" which does not prove either to be correct. Have you now conceeded this... that you're claims of being correct aren't true?

 

[Philothei]

What happened to admin splitting a post after it reached 100 pages?

No it does not... Now the threads go on for ever...

 

[beamishboy]

That's just you making things up again. The Anglican church does not hold to doctrine because it agrees with Rome, but because it judges that doctrine sound of itself. You simply advertise now that you have no idea about your own church. No wonder you invent translations to scripture.

I note too that whilst you continued to ignore me asking questions about Mary bearing God, you answered someone else who asked similar questions. Why is that?

My dear Monty,

Please don't feel slighted. The beamishboy has a large fan base and it's tough answering the questions of all my fans.

In post #888 I asked you what your elusive question was. It was difficult to get a response from you. Every time you post something, you claim I avoid your question without telling me what your question is.

In that same post #888, I answered precisely the questions that you gave me. But the elusive question that you seemed to shy to spell out is one I never was given a chance to reply to. Please see my post #888.

I think I know what the problem is. You enter CF sporadically. You ask a barrage of questions and then you disappear. Presumably, you are not like me. My internet connection is on all the time and I access CF from home, from school and sometimes even when I'm travelling. I like to make it such that people think the beamishboy does not sleep. Someone in CF thought I was a robot programme once and I was so thrilled by that.

Then when I finally answer your question, there are many other posts that are piled on top of mine. Don't you know that wherever the beamishboy is, there will his fans be also. That's why any thread visited by the beamishboy gets top box office scores. So you miss my answer to your question.

In future, if you don't get to read my answer and are too lazy to go through the piles of fan mail in the thread, ask the question again and the beamishboy is sure to answer it.

The beamishboy is a valiant knight who will answer any question and take up any challenge and pick up any thrown gauntlet.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Please don't feel slighted. The beamishboy has a large fan base and it's tough answering the questions of all my fans.
The beamishboy is a valiant knight who will answer any question and take up any challenge and pick up any thrown gauntlet.

Count me in as a fan

 

[Montalban]

My dear Monty,

Do you mean me, Montalban? Not only do you take liberty with my name, you offer examples of your selective memory.

In post #888 I asked you what your elusive question was. It was difficult to get a response from you. Every time you post something, you claim I avoid your question without telling me what your question is.

Considering I asked you a number of times I find your post ridiculous. I asked about whether Mary was actually blessed, at all, and if carrying a child-Jesus is ordinary. I have asked this of you a number of times. I raised it a number of times before you got around to making that post, and I have since asked you again in post #1011. It took you days to get around to making any response in regards to the 'ordinariness' of Mary being the only person to bear Jesus. And even then your response didn't address that issue.

You replied to post #860, not #859. In that post of yours you claim I was too afraid to repeat my question when in fact I had in #859 WHICH YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO, which is what I've said you've done. Which you have done. Which you deny doing.

I had mentioned my question previously in post #840, and that you ignore it, and you ignored it!

In post #753 you repeated that there was nothing extraordinary about Mary

In post #722 you repeat where I'd accused you of not answering me. You claim in post #725 (in reply to #719) that I hadn't asked the question before. In fact I'd asked it before in post #682, #680, & earlier in #645. In post #685 you ignored the question about whether she'd done anything 'special'.

Did you attempt to answer it then? You made a 'just-so' statement that she hadn't done anything ordinary. I suppose your flippant response was an answer... ignoring she had given birth to God! She'd raised God. Sure God had used her, but did he do so without her participation?

In that post I also asked about the marriagble age, given that there's no prohibition specific to marrying a 10 year old, it must be, based on your sola-scriptura post, up to the individual to decide.

In future, if you don't get to read my answer and are too lazy to go through the piles of fan mail in the thread, ask the question again and the beamishboy is sure to answer it.

You're being dishonest. I asked you in a number of posts.

You have advertised here you have no desire for honest debate. The amount of times you have straw-manned people shows this (see my post #643, and your post #631 which was one of a series of yours straw-manning the Orthodox stance to Marian belief)... or more recently where you suggest the Anglican church holds to some beliefs because they are pro-Roman

You've not shown why your translation is more valid.

You've not dealt with sola-scriptura, other than to say that this basic doctrine of your faith is one you don't know much about.

 

[Montalban]

Count me in as a fan

You're easily impressed.

 

[beamishboy]

Count me in as a fan

My dear LLOJ,

Thanks for your kindness. The beamishboy warmly welcomes you to his Castle of Truth. Do write to me at beamishboy94@gmail.com and I'll give you the key to my castle. Just don't step into the moat. It's shark-infested. bbbbbbb also has a castle but the moat is alligator-infested or so he tells me in his email. Hehe. I don't like alligators because they crawl out of the moat and cause harm. Sharks are better.

Hope to hear from you. Cheerio!