Speak lovingly of Mary

[CaliforniaJosiah]

2. IF God says in the NT that this is a fulfilled of what God said in the OT, then we have His infallible, written, knowable/unalterable statement on that. That's an altogether different situation that Brigham Young referencing the OT and saying that it is fulfilled in the LDS Church.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, nor how it responds to what I've asked

Your point was that some of the references in the NT to the OT are not so obvious. But, what you seem to have entirely missed is that IT'S IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, thus GOD is saying that is what GOD was referrring to. That's an entirely, completely different issue than someone or something stating that some OT is a "type" of something to which no other Scripture refers. You do not seem to know the difference between reading what God said and insisting that God be required to agree with your opinion on what He MEANT but didn't say...


The issue is this: Spreading an unconfirmed/unsubstantiated rumor about someone (especially one held in very high esteem and especially a rumor of an extremely personal and private matter that all here have confirmed they would NOT want made public), is a SIN according to the CC - as well as hurtful (and thus unloving). So, the issue here is NOT how many "buy" the rumor, how how long the rumor has been going around (especially since all have admitted it started LONG after the death of Mary or Joseph), or how "sincere" those are that spread it. The issue is singular: is it true? If it's NOT, it's NOT loving - it's hurtful to Mary (and thus Her Son) and even if it is true but not substantiation, then it's sinful to share it (according to the Catholic Catechism). It is a DOGMA - and thus requires substantiation of the highest order and level. Yes, I know that the two denominations that teach it as dogma say it's true, just like the one denomination that says all the things about Joseph Smith are true - sure, the one who teaches it believes self is correct, but we've already established that this is rejected as no substantiation at all. Read the next paragraph.

As Christians, we accept the infallible authority of one Author - God, and the Scriptures He wrote, so if you have Scriptures that say Mary had no sex ever, Mary was conceived immaculately, Mary was assumed into heaven at her death (or was it her undeath), etc. - then it's time to share those statements because we've been waiting or centuries for SOMEONE to do that. All we get is, "well, God MEANT to say it but, well, didn't, but we think it's "there" in invisible words no one can see." Well, we all admit - that's not substantiation that's just eisegesis and anyone can "prove" anything by saying it's there but invisibly. Now, since it's obvious there is nothing in Scripture about these things, I'd accept WHATEVER you'd accept from me or my Mormon friend. If you have 5 people who knew Mary who testified in their lifetime that she had no sex, that would be comparible to the dozens who knew Joseph Smith and testified in their lifetime that all the things about Smith are true. I've actually set the "bar" SO low that I'm willing to accept far, far LESS than what our Catholic and Orthodox friends would accept from anyone else - and yet, still nothing....

We've gotten diversions, evasions, "but I really think it's true, I really really do - so it MUST be!" and the like. Odd, you don't accept such apologetics and yet you think we should. OR "but my denomination says they are correct so they MUST be!" Again, odd, because you don't accept that apologetic and yet you think we should.

Here's the point: If you don't know it's true, it's a rumor. The spreading of rumors is a sin. If it's not true, all these stories are hurtful to Our Blessed Lady, our Mother - and thus to Her Son. And because of the nature of some of these stories, they are also potentially highly embarrassing, offensive and hurtful. I would hope all would have AT LEAST as much respect for Mary as we do for our own mothers... AT LEAST.

I have. If the Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that no statement is being made about how often She had sex (if at all), then I'm open to correction. But I've read the Catholic Catechism, I've been taught by Catholic teachers and they have told me that it means that Mary never once ever had intercourse. So, if the Catechism and my teachers are wrong, I'm open to your correction. But, so far, it seems that The Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that Mary was a virgin perpetually. And the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary means that Mary was conceived immaculately. That's what the Catholic Catechism says (yes, I've carefully studied all 2,865 points of it - with Catholic teachers), so if that's not what the dogma is, again, correct the Catechism and my several teachers. OR you can begin to address what is posted here so we can have a conversation instead of these constant diversions, evasions, "let's PLEASE discuss something else!" efforts

.

I am not RC

Nice. You implied that I didn't know about the Dogmas of which I speak and that it would be "loving" to better understand them. I think I do. I think what's lacking is the substantiation for them.





.

 

[simonthezealot]

39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone.
Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him,
Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee,
that, if thou wouldest believe,
thou shouldest see the glory of God?
41 Then they took away the stone...
b was troubled: Gr. he troubled himself




It appears that His groaning and weeping was
because of their unbelief and lack of faith in
him, in God, to do what He said He'd do.
It's only logical, because He wouldnt weep
for His friend's death! Death is a 'good' thing.

IMO
sunlover

Sun is right on...Back up to verse 4 and learn about my favorite topic "TO GOD BE THE GLORY" ;Either the Lord was sad about their lack of faith or He isn't the Lord God and He made a false prophesy...I think you know the answer. He said
4:"This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified by it"

 

[katholikos]

That's a specious argument, especially since the gospels are anonymous.

So, you accuse me of not being able to accept what you think is plainly taught in scriptures, then you turn around and say you don't know who wrote the Gospels?
Wow.

 

[Thekla]

sigh.... Adelphos means brothers. It could mean cousin, kin, bretheren... or actually if could mean siblings!

the problem with the hermenutic of "It sometimes means this, therefore it doesn't mean this" is a flawed logic.

if sometimes a=b, that does not mean that a must not equal C. the only way you could argue that is if A ALWAYS=b, therefore never C.

the apologetic that Jesus must put Mary in the care of siblings if he had any is specious. Jesus was dying on the Cross. We have a record that John, one of his closest friends, was there. and his Mother was there. NO record exists of his brothers being there.

he took care of his mother by giving her in to the care of the one he trusted most that was nearby. What would you have Christ do? I put Mary into the care of my brothers.... they aren't here? ok, I'll wait.

that is remarkably silly.

your point per: the crucifixion skips that Christ knewHe would be crucified.

 

[Thekla]

by the way, California Josaiah,

I have provided a 2nd century source attesting that Mary had one child -- and the source is
1. pagan (objective)
2. anti-Christian (no bias here)
3. would have benefited his argument by the mention of more children

 

[Thekla]

although it is off topic, I'm confused about the interpretation of the Lazaros event:

1. if death is not a tragic event, why did Christ defeat it ?
2. whenever it happens, is the separation of the soul from the body seen as ok in some sense ?
3. Christ had not yet defeated death by His Resurrection; wouldn't death be "different" before His Resurrection ? (And wouldn't Christ know this ?)
4. Why would the number of days that Lazaros spent in the tomb seem "short" when we know time with our body, and Lazaros' body was dead.

 

[lionroar0]

Perhaps because you already have presuppositions.
It's clear as day to me because why would Jesus ever
be sad about the death when He knew it was temporary,
and He knew He'd raise Lazerus immediately after...
But it's the text itself that makes me understand it
the way I do. His Words.
He said, "Did i NOT tell you??"
He was sad alright, but not over His friends nap.
(IMO)

Being God does not make Him any less human.

Being troubled and weeping and the death of a friend is a human response to death

Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Being God does not make Him any less human.

Being troubled and weeping and the death of a friend is a human response to death

Peace

Greetings. Are there others here that wonder why the Lazarus is mentioned in only 2 chapters of the whole NT and that of John 11 and 12.
He is also in the Parable of Luke 16 and why do you suppose that one of the Greatest Miralcles in the Bible is given such token notice.

I am now translating the verses just where the Lazarus is mentioned, and I am still awed by this event and even more awed that it is barely given a foonote in the NT.

Btw, I view those Jewish rulers/Chief Priests as the Rich Ones in that parable of Luke 16.

John 12:1 The then Jesus toward/before six days of the passover came into Bethany the-where was Lazarus whom He raised out of dead-ones.
2 They make then to Him dinner there and the Martha served, the yet Lazarus one was out of the ones reclining together to Him.
9 Knew then the throng, vast, out of the Judeans that there he is and they came not because of the Jesus only, but also the Lazarus they may be aquainted, of whom He raises/rouses out of dead-ones.
10 Devising yet the Chief-priests that also the Lazarus they may be killing.
11 That many because of him were led away of the Judeans and believed into the Jesus.

 

[Thekla]

Your point was that some of the references in the NT to the OT are not so obvious. But, what you seem to have entirely missed is that IT'S IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, thus GOD is saying that is what GOD was referrring to. That's an entirely, completely different issue than someone or something stating that some OT is a "type" of something to which no other Scripture refers. You do not seem to know the difference between reading what God said and insisting that God be required to agree with your opinion on what He MEANT but didn't say...

This is one way of interpretation, and as you believe this it is good that you use this standard for you own reading. But to apply it to others is a different matter. In your view, it would seem any who use typos are heretical, and as those enter a Church that ascribes to your view and persist in teaching it would indeed be a matter for your immediate concern.

I am not familiar with any clear statements in the Bible which attest to this view, but perhaps you know of some and would be interested in sharing them.

The issue is this: Spreading an unconfirmed/unsubstantiated rumor about someone (especially one held in very high esteem and especially a rumor of an extremely personal and private matter that all here have confirmed they would NOT want made public), is a SIN according to the CC - as well as hurtful (and thus unloving). So, the issue here is NOT how many "buy" the rumor, how how long the rumor has been going around (especially since all have admitted it started LONG after the death of Mary or Joseph), or how "sincere" those are that spread it. The issue is singular: is it true? If it's NOT, it's NOT loving - it's hurtful to Mary (and thus Her Son) and even if it is true but not substantiation, then it's sinful to share it (according to the Catholic Catechism). It is a DOGMA - and thus requires substantiation of the highest order and level. Yes, I know that the two denominations that teach it as dogma say it's true, just like the one denomination that says all the things about Joseph Smith are true - sure, the one who teaches it believes self is correct, but we've already established that this is rejected as no substantiation at all. Read the next paragraph.

You have made this statement to me on several occasions, but as I have persistently stated, I am not RC.

As Christians, we accept the infallible authority of one Author - God, and the Scriptures He wrote, so if you have Scriptures that say Mary had no sex ever, Mary was conceived immaculately, Mary was assumed into heaven at her death (or was it her undeath), etc. - then it's time to share those statements because we've been waiting or centuries for SOMEONE to do that. All we get is, "well, God MEANT to say it but, well, didn't, but we think it's "there" in invisible words no one can see." Well, we all admit - that's not substantiation that's just eisegesis and anyone can "prove" anything by saying it's there but invisibly. Now, since it's obvious there is nothing in Scripture about these things, I'd accept WHATEVER you'd accept from me or my Mormon friend. If you have 5 people who knew Mary who testified in their lifetime that she had no sex, that would be comparible to the dozens who knew Joseph Smith and testified in their lifetime that all the things about Smith are true. I've actually set the "bar" SO low that I'm willing to accept far, far LESS than what our Catholic and Orthodox friends would accept from anyone else - and yet, still nothing....

again, you confuse EO and RC teaching, and seem to be unfamiliar with the EO understanding of the particular terms you use. Further, any apparent understanding of EOrthodox Christian ethos is absent.
As in the manner of interpretation, your canon is inappropriately applied to those who have a different measure. And shifting the bar is hardly, imo, conducive to fruitful discussion.

We've gotten diversions, evasions, "but I really think it's true, I really really do - so it MUST be!" and the like. Odd, you don't accept such apologetics and yet you think we should. OR "but my denomination says they are correct so they MUST be!" Again, odd, because you don't accept that apologetic and yet you think we should.

This sounds like your position, reflected in your insistence that only your standard of interpretation is permitted by God.

Here's the point: If you don't know it's true, it's a rumor. The spreading of rumors is a sin. If it's not true, all these stories are hurtful to Our Blessed Lady, our Mother - and thus to Her Son. And because of the nature of some of these stories, they are also potentially highly embarrassing, offensive and hurtful. I would hope all would have AT LEAST as much respect for Mary as we do for our own mothers... AT LEAST.

Then why would you create opportunity for discussing the matter by bringing it up repeatedly ?

Nice. You implied that I didn't know about the Dogmas of which I speak and that it would be "loving" to better understand them. I think I do. I think what's lacking is the substantiation for them.

you have repeatedly confused EO and RC teachings and posters.




.[/quote]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You have made this statement to me on several occasions, but as I have persistently stated, I am not RC.

Did you know that Noah is only mentioned 8 times in the NT?
And remember, the present heaven and land is reserved for punishment by FIRE this time.

Matthew 24:38 For as they were in the days, those, to-the before the flood eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until which day entered Noah into the Ark,
39 And not they know until came the deludge and lifts/takes-up/hren <142> (5656) All. Thus shall be also the parousia <3952> of the Son of the Man. [Luke 17:26, 27]

1 Peter 3:20 To ones being stubborn once when awaited the out of the God, patience, in days of Noah of being constructed an Ark into which few, this being eight souls, were saved thru water.

 

[Uphill Battle]

your point per: the crucifixion skips that Christ knewHe would be crucified.

so?

 

[Rick Otto]

Then why would you create opportunity for discussing the matter by bringing it up repeatedly ?

He has a conscience about rumors & he has enough respect & admiration for Mary that he wants to convince the mongers to cease.

...That wasn't obvious?

 

[Brennin]

So, you accuse me of not being able to accept what you think is plainly taught in scriptures, then you turn around and say you don't know who wrote the Gospels?
Wow.

The authors did not identify themselves. The attributions came later.

 

[lionroar0]

Greetings. Are there others here that wonder why the Lazarus is mentioned in only 2 chapters of the whole NT and that of John 11 and 12.
He is also in the Parable of Luke 16 and why do you suppose that one of the Greatest Miralcles in the Bible is given such token notice.

I am now translating the verses just where the Lazarus is mentioned, and I am still awed by this event and even more awed that it is barely given a foonote in the NT.

That's an execellent question. Some times I wished that the NT authors were still alive so that we could as them questions.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

He has a conscience about rumors & he has enough respect & admiration for Mary that he wants to convince the mongers to cease.

...That wasn't obvious?

One could say the samething about those that know what the Scriptures plainly teach. Although there is no conclusive evidence as to what it plainly teaches.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

The authors did not identify themselves. The attributions came later.

So you don't even now who wrote the gospels but you know what it plainly teaches.

alrighty then!!!!!

Peace

 

[Brennin]

So you don't even now who wrote the gospels but you know what it plainly teaches.

alrighty then!!!!!

Peace

Yes. The two are not related.

 

[lionroar0]

so?

Since He knew He was going to be crucified don't you think He would have planned ahead??

Giving His mother to St. John instead of His older brothers would have dishonored her.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Yes. The two are not related.

Double standard and non sequitor.

Peace

 

[Philothei]

sigh.... Adelphos means brothers. It could mean cousin, kin, bretheren... or actually if could mean siblings!

the problem with the hermenutic of "It sometimes means this, therefore it doesn't mean this" is a flawed logic.

if sometimes a=b, that does not mean that a must not equal C. the only way you could argue that is if A ALWAYS=b, therefore never C.

The problem with the hermeneutic is first off ... that it is in a foreign language to you and YOU would not trust a foreigner to explain it to you...There is not 100% right translation on the word brother... as it can mean a number of things.. thus it can be either way. Your math points to that brother can equal many things b, c, or d.. thus no conclusive thus all are approximate and non for sure... How does this proves any point...Again it seems there is no consensus in this term... thus a moot point.

Second you think that this logic of yours is right....agian according to it.. then the bible is again moot on the issue as we still do not know 100% it means brother but we "speculate" playing with percentanges.. here.... We are not sure it means brother and that is the point.

the apologetic that Jesus must put Mary in the care of siblings if he had any is specious. Jesus was dying on the Cross. We have a record that John, one of his closest friends, was there. and his Mother was there. NO record exists of his brothers being there.

That is right so their brother got crucified and the brothers are not ....there.. does this sound logical to you? But the Evangelist does not mention them... instead he "appoints" John to do the job.. .Why? the logical explanation is that (being a jew) would have assigned them to take care of his mother but instead he appoints John, his beloved disciple... That is quite a task..and responsibility to assign to a boy if there were other siblings.. .Also it looks like he was estarnged by his siblings since no one showed up for the crucifix...that ought to be pretty odd... me thinks...
he

took care of his mother by giving her in to the care of the one he trusted most that was nearby. What would you have Christ do? I put Mary into the care of my brothers.... they aren't here? ok, I'll wait.

Problem: why they were not there??? Ommission of the evangelist? then why assign John?

that is remarkably silly.

too bad you find it silly I find it extremely interesting and valid point... that directs us to see that bottom line again there is silence in the bible about the so called brothers of Christ...