Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

bbbbbbb -

You've missed my point per scripture entirely.
It is a parallel -- and does belong in this discussion. We are discussing the verification of teachings. We teach that the NT is authentic and the ever-virginity of Mary is authentic using the same standard (canon/measure), which can be summarised as tradition. If you distrust tradition, how can you authenticate the NT absent tradition ?

If you want verification, it would be to the point to drop the bias of cultural mileau.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

bbbbbbb -

You've missed my point per scripture entirely.
It is a parallel -- and does belong in this discussion. We are discussing the verification of teachings. We teach that the NT is authentic and the ever-virginity of Mary is authentic using the same standard (canon/measure), which can be summarised as tradition. If you distrust tradition, how can you authenticate the NT absent tradition ?

If you want verification, it would be to the point to drop the bias of cultural mileau.

Greetings Thekla. Why is it so important to RCs and Orthodox concerning the "perpetual virginity" of mary?
I mean, what does that have to do with Salvation in Jesus? I myself have never ever dwelt on mary and I suppose I am just mystified with yours and the RCs denomination on it. Just curious.

Reve 5:12 Saying to a voice, great: "Worthy is the lamb-kin, the one having been slaughtered, to be receiving the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessedness"

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7167075&page=3
Revelation Chapter 1 Verses

 

[Thekla]

It looks like a big deal when so many take such a strong offense - rather takes the teaching out of context and magnifies it beyond the scope of balance, lol.

Its important because

1. it is Christological (ultimately, it refers back to God's plan/will, the person of Christ and His identity, the fulfillment of His prophecy and promise, the calling of each to fulfill his/her skopos/purpose, the nature of covenant - as mentioned by Katholikos.

2. we see it in scripture

3. it is a direct historical reality that - like other examples - is a witness to the awesomeness of God

4. we consider Mary the "fruit" of the Old Covenant as evidenced in the Incarnation and the fulfillment of the New Covenant

5. she is the first to have Christ within, and is thus an example of the fulfillment that all seek (and when any of us fail to "hear the word of God and keep it, we fall short of our purpose and carrying forth God's will)

6. because everything about Christ, everything He did and does is eternal, is wondrous beyond understanding, and He "Who cannot be contained" was in her, and "He who could not be touched" was cradled by one, He who feeds all of creation was nursed by her, He who is pre-eternal 'stooped/condescended' to be born a helpless infant. Its humbling, mind boggling: "oh wonder of wonders, how do you nurse the Master?".

7. believing it true, to say otherwise is -simply- distortion and slander

8. many of the attacks on the Church were on the virgin birth (and, of course, on the person of Christ but also of the Theotokos; as usual, the 'quiet' teachings become more focused when defense is mounted against such attacks)

9. the verses requesting the intercession of the Virgin have survived in the EO/OO/RC verbatim (allowing for translation) for at least just under 1800 years when compared to the findings of the early 3rd c. text found in the mid 20th c. (Egypt). Must have some importance to the early and later Churches to survive that long.

10. I'm not sure how to describe this, but (I suspect this is true in the OO/RC as well) I always have the strong sense that - when any of the apostles, Saints, etc are mentioned, we are discussing our family. My family. Whatever the other Churches are like, the EO is familial/community oriented. Christianity is a "way of life", lived out in community.

11. as elder Paisios once said -- when asked about Biblical interpretation -- the Saints interpret the Gospel for us in their lives. All the Saints are "interpretations"; Mary is one.

there's more, likely -- but I've got an early day tomorrow, LOL
Thanks for asking.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

9. the verses requesting the intercession of the Virgin have survived in the EO/OO/RC verbatim (allowing for translation) for at least just under 1800 years when compared to the findings of the early 3rd c. text found in the mid 20th c. (Egypt). Must have some importance to the early and later Churches to survive that long.

Ok thks Thekla. Glad to see the RCs and Othodox in agreement on that.

Btw, ya ever notice the greek words used in gala 4:4?

Jesus had to be born of a Woman though I believe it would have been even more awsome if He would have just created Him as YHWH did with the Adam.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.


Gala 4:4 When yet came the filling of the time, sends forth out, the God, the son of Him becoming/genomenon <1096> (5637) out of woman becoming/genomenon <1096> (5637) under law.

Reve 16:17 and the seventh one pours out the bowl of him upon the air and came out a Voice, great, out of the Sanctuary from the Throne saying :it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). [Revelation 21:6]

Reve 21:6 And He said to me: "it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). [Reve 16:17]
I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I, to the one thirsting, shall be giving out of the spring of the water of the life gratuitously.

 

[katholikos]

Greetings Thekla. Why is it so important to RCs and Orthodox concerning the "perpetual virginity" of mary?...

I'll jump in on that question from a Catholic POV.

Frankly, its not that important in the great scheme of things. Out of a three inch thick Catechism, one page is devoted to this dogma.. ..or maybe two. The reason it seems so important is that protestants always want to argue about it, and therefore thread upon thread is started about it. The protestants are the one's who seem obsessed about it, not us.

Yet, I will also say this: Truth is always important. And Marian Dogmas are true. However, I can say, having accepted them as true, they really don't play into my daily walk in Christ, except when I'm forced to argue about them with other people.

 

[MamaZ]

So you don't pray Mary mother of God have mercy on me?

 

[Philothei]

If you are asking an EO no we do not....Only Christ can have mercy on us... and can save us...

It is something like that

O Holy Theotokos (intercede) Savior saves us.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Its important because

I'd like a little clarification.
WHAT is importance?
The DOGMA of the Immaculate Conception specifically and solely of Mary?
The DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary?

1. it is Christological (ultimately, it refers back to God's plan/will, the person of Christ and His identity, the fulfillment of His prophecy and promise, the calling of each to fulfill his/her skopos/purpose, the nature of covenant - as mentioned by Katholikos.

IMHO, the exact opposite is the case.
While I disagree with some of my Protestant brother and sisters the Mary detracts from Christ in Catholic spirituality (I can't speak for Orthodox spirituality), I don't agree (theologically OR spiritually) that all this dogmatic focus on MARY has the sole purpose of focusing on Christ. IF the point was to support Christology then this whole discussion would be in the Christology forum, not the Mariology forum, we'd be discussing the Immaculate Conception of JESUS, the Ascension of JESUS, etc. And we're not.

2. we see it in scripture

Friend, what is OBVIOUS to EVERYONE is that you don't.
NO ONE can "see" what is admittedly not there.
What is going on is very simple and obvious. A theory is being imputed into Scripture by classic, obvious eisegesis. God is being forced to agree with the view - not the other way around. Come on friend, it's very, very obvious. AT BEST (and it would be stretching things beyond the credible), it's YOUR INTERPRATION that is being declared to be DOGMA and YOU feel that Scripture affirms the view - but even that is backwards - you are suggesting that God agrees with YOU, not the other way around.

3. it is a direct historical reality that - like other examples - is a witness to the awesomeness of God

Frankly, how the Immaculate Conception of MARY glories GOD is a point I'm entirely missing..... Frankly, many of the RCC Marian dogmas don't even seem to glorify Mary and certainly not God.

4. we consider Mary the "fruit" of the Old Covenant as evidenced in the Incarnation and the fulfillment of the New Covenant

5. she is the first to have Christ within, and is thus an example of the fulfillment that all seek (and when any of us fail to "hear the word of God and keep it, we fall short of our purpose and carrying forth God's will)

I "get it" and respect the point. I'd only point out that you are speaking of what YOU "consider" and "feel." Mormons "consider" and "feel" a lot, too. You give no credence to their "consider" and "feel" for issues they don't declare as dogmas but it is argued that all must regard how one denomination "considers" and "feels" as DOGMATIC FACT (used to divide the church, condemn others, even burn them at the stake). Freind, we're not talking about what we "feel." We're talking about DOGMA. I "consider" oatmeal a great breakfast food, but I'm not arguing that you are hellbound if you like an English muffin instead.

6. because everything about Christ, everything He did and does is eternal, is wondrous beyond understanding, and He "Who cannot be contained" was in her, and "He who could not be touched" was cradled by one, He who feeds all of creation was nursed by her, He who is pre-eternal 'stooped/condescended' to be born a helpless infant. Its humbling, mind boggling: "oh wonder of wonders, how do you nurse the Master?"

1. DOGMA should not be substantiated entirely by the "answer" WE give to the question WE ask. Anything can be substantiated in this way. It's worse than worthless.

2. Jesus dwelt in the world, too - as God proclaims in His Holy Scriptures. By this logic, that means that the entire WORLD must be sinless. And if it's impossible for the sinless to be in the womb of the sinful, then Mary's mother must have been sinless, too - and so on. It's not only an entirely baseless point but an illogical substantiation.

7. believing it true, to say otherwise is -simply- distortion and slander

Of course, if it's NOT true, then it is a lie and a sin to proclaim it. Worse (IMHO), it is hurtful and painful to Our Blessed Lady and therefore to Her Son.

Someone may believe that Mary had 3 eyes, pink hair and 30 kids. They may be sincere in that, that's entirely moot. What MATTERS (and matters a LOT) is: is it true? Because unless you KNOW that it is, it is what the Catholic Catechism calls rumor (a popular but unsubstantiated report or story) - and it declares that to spread such is a SIN. It MIGHT be true but if you don't KNOW that it's True, it's a rumor and a SIN to spread it.

My mum (admittedly a Protestant) taught me to ask 2 things before I spread something about someone: Is it True? Is it kind? IMHO, several of these RCC Marian dogmas fail at both points. I'm uncomfortable about spreading them, especially as DOGMATIC FACTS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE AND CERTAINTY, not because I don't love and respect Her but percisely because I do. Rumors are not loving, spreading them is not speaking lovingly. ESPECIALLY in something at intensely personal and private, something as potentially hurtful and embarrassing as her sex life after Jesus was born.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah







.

 

[Brennin]

I think she means your PV of, say, Mary having sex. You guys argue against Mary's Ever-Virginity, yet you cannot solidly substatiate the opposite view. I think that's a pretty fair statement.

The brothers of Jesus who traveled in the company of Mary serve as substantiation.

 

[Thekla]

even in what I've read of Celsus, who attacked the character of Mary as part of his argument against Christianity, did not claim she had other children.

 

[Brennin]

This is pointless. The Genesis of every Marian doctrine is in scripture. The fact that you reject those scripture intepretations is not the same as them not being there. I don't know why you continue to ask for things when you automatically reject them when they are provided.

There is more support for the idea that God is a big bird in scripture than there is for one Marian doctrine.

Psalm 91:4

4He will cover you with his pinions,
and under his wings you will find refuge

 

[Thekla]

The brothers of Jesus who traveled in the company of Mary serve as substantiation.

prove that they were children of Mary

 

[Brennin]

even in what I've read of Celsus, who attacked the character of Mary as part of his argument against Christianity, did not claim she had other children.

I doubt Celsus, a typical pagan, bought into the whole "sex is icky" paradigm that underlies Marian doctrine.

 

[Brennin]

prove that they were children of Mary

&#949;&#7990;&#960;&#949;&#957; &#948;&#941; &#964;&#953;&#962; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8183; &#7984;&#948;&#959;&#8058; &#7969; &#956;&#942;&#964;&#951;&#961; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#959;&#7985; &#7936;&#948;&#949;&#955;&#966;&#959;&#943; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#7956;&#958;&#969; &#7953;&#963;&#964;&#942;&#954;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#950;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#8166;&#957;&#964;&#941;&#962; &#963;&#959;&#953; &#955;&#945;&#955;&#8134;&#963;&#945;&#953; (Matthew 12:47)

 

[Kristos]

Oh, now we are getting somewhere...NOT!

 

[Kristos]

There is more support for the idea that God is a big bird in scripture than there is for one Marian doctrine.

Psalm 91:4

4He will cover you with his pinions,
and under his wings you will find refuge

Oh really? So you don't think Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the Word, the Son - GOD???

You don't think Mary was a virgin (at least at the birth of Chrsit)?

Are these not Marian doctrines?

 

[Brennin]

Oh, now we are getting somewhere...NOT!

Yeah, I know if I were trying to convey that the men accompanying Mary were actually her stepsons or nephews, I would use adelphoi. It makes perfect sense!

 

[Brennin]

Oh really? So you don't think Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the Word, the Son - GOD???

You don't think Mary was a virgin (at least at the birth of Chrsit)?

Are these not Marian doctrines?

No, those are Christian doctrines.

 

[Thekla]

&#949;&#7990;&#960;&#949;&#957; &#948;&#941; &#964;&#953;&#962; &#945;&#8016;&#964;&#8183; &#7984;&#948;&#959;&#8058; &#7969; &#956;&#942;&#964;&#951;&#961; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#959;&#7985; &#7936;&#948;&#949;&#955;&#966;&#959;&#943; &#963;&#959;&#965; &#7956;&#958;&#969; &#7953;&#963;&#964;&#942;&#954;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#957; &#950;&#951;&#964;&#959;&#8166;&#957;&#964;&#941;&#962; &#963;&#959;&#953; &#955;&#945;&#955;&#8134;&#963;&#945;&#953; (Matthew 12:47)

1. the term adelphoi has several meanings
2. the LXX (a template for the way Semitic concepts were translated into Greek) uses the term adelphoi in the broader sense
3. Semitic culture, as well as ME, understands the term in a manner unlike our present culture and era

 

[Brennin]

1. the term adelphoi has several meanings
2. the LXX (a template for the way Semitic concepts were translated into Greek) uses the term adelphoi in the broader sense
3. Semitic culture, as well as ME, understands the term in a manner unlike our present culture and era

The Septuagint is a translation; the NT is not. You know as well as I do that there is a Greek word for cousin and that it appears in the NT.