Speak lovingly of Mary

[Brennin]

Double standard and non sequitor.

Peace

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

 

[lionroar0]

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense?

Double standard because what goes for you does not go for the EOC, RCC and the OO for that matter.

You trust the gospels who's authors are unknown. Does that seem logical??

We trust that the Scriptures to say that Mary is Ever-Virgin and that trust is based on Tradition.

That is we trust those that kept these things and then wrote them down. We trust those that were taught what Jesus and the Apostles taught. That is to say we trust the Church. We trust that when they discerned the gospels that it was the Holy Spirit acting through them.

What is your basis for trusting the Gospels??

Peace

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Double standard because what goes for you does not go for the EOC, RCC and the OO for that matter.

You trust the gospels who's authors are unknown. Does that seem logical??

We trust that the Scriptures to say that Mary is Ever-Virgin and that trust is based on Tradition.

As long as the Gospels harmonize with the OT and Revelation, I am happy.

John 19:15 Those yet Cry-out "take-away! take-away! crucify! Him". Is saying to them the Pilate "the King of ye I shall be crucifying?". Answered the Chief-priests "not we are having a King except Caesar"

Luke 23:44 Was yet hour, sixth and Darkness became over whole the Land til hour of ninth.

Reve 16:10 And the fifth one pours out the bowl of him on the throne of the wild-beast, and became the Kingdom of it having been Darkened and they gnawed the tongues of them out of the misery.

 

[sunlover1]

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"

Yes, this is all I was stating.
Jesus was clear that He'd already addressed the issue
and yet they ran crying rather than trusting Him, Him
who they were so very close to.

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

Hey there lion!

No, I know that Jesus cares very much for our pain
and lives to interceed on our behalf.
I was just looking at the Lazerus story, and in that
particular example, it appears Jesus is disappointed
that they ignored what He'd already said.
God always has the provision ready before we
need it. He'd already worked it out, and so was
in no hurry to get there. They were probably ticked
at Him, (it's been days! he's probably stinking by now!)
I added the exclamation, feel free to disregard my
theory.

love,
sunlover

this topic is too much for you guys you can come into this later....

Thank you for the rep message Philothei LOL
The pastors do agree with you.
It's alright, and I dont mind if I'm wrong.
Thank you for the love.
And right back atcha!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, I know that Jesus cares very much for our pain
and lives to interceed on our behalf.
I was just looking at the Lazerus story, and in that
particular example, it appears Jesus is disappointed
that they ignored what He'd already said.
God always has the provision ready before

Hey Sunny. I was studying on that "Other Disciple" mentioned at the trial of Jesus and at the Tomb after the Crucifixion and I could start a whole folder just on the Awsome event of Jesus raising the Lazarus.
You can bet the Sadduccees and Pharisees weren't to happy to see him walking all over the place

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7282853
Question on other Disciple John 18:15

John 12:10 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.

Luke 16:26 And on all of these, between Us [NC Faith/Life] and Ye [OC Law/Death] a great chasm/casma <5490> hath been established, so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye not be able to, no yet thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276>.

 

[katholikos]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

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.

How many scriptures need to refer to it?

So many people want to return to the pure early Church. Well, guess what: The early Church did not have an NT, and "Typology" was how they read the OT. Consider the famous Bereans that you guys love so much, who "searched the scriptures" to see if what Paul was saying was true. What scriptures were they searching? The OT!! And how were they reading it? Using Typology, thats how, obviously.

You want to read scriptures like the first Christians did? Then you learn how to user Typology and the OT, because thats all they had.

 

[MamaZ]

I think Abraham was special -- God saved Lot because of the earnest prayer of his uncle. I think Moses was special -- he sojourned with God, but when he returned, seeing just the light on his face (dimmer than the light that Moses saw, I would think) he was asked to cover it. I think John the Baptist was special; so earnestly did he dedicate himself to God's call that he ate only locusts and wild honey. I think Paul was special - as Saul, he breathed hatred for the Christians. Yet so earnestly did he love Christ, that he pointed out that one should not be like those who sought circumcision to avoid the persecution given to those being identified as Christian (and himself suffered martyrdom). I'm nowhere that capable. And Mary was the mother of Jesus -- I am no way a perfect mother, but to have such a child - I cannot imagine.

I don't understand what you are saying here. All Good examples of Godly men and women for sure. But still none are equal with Christ.

 

[MamaZ]

No they wouldn't becuase they were Jews, and Jews called their near relatives "brothers." Why would a Jew start speaking like a Greek just because he's writing in Greek? If I wrote a letter in French, I'd still talk like an American.

Matters not what they were. Greek has its own language and it was used to pen the NT scriptures. So if cousin was what they were they would have used the greek word for cousin since the scripture was written in greek.

 

[MamaZ]

what has anonimity got to do with language? The ones written in Greek especially Luke and the Acts are in impecable Greek... and for sure attributed to Luke so what it has to do with what Katholikos is saying?

Futhrer more in Greek it is the same... Paul called the Brethren "adelfoi": so that means the congregation were his actual brothers??? A lot of times in Greek those terms were used that way. The mistake or the new idea of the interpretation of brother as adelfos was introduced in the late 6th century and the information was never proved valid based on gnostic writings...

Also if Mary had brothers according to jewish custom Christ should have put his brothers in change of Mary's care so that again testifies that he had no brothers but put John in charge...Expalin this you all.....

Yes actually they were in the Spirit. For when one comes to Christ we are all one with Him spiritually. Paul knew this so therefore calls them in truth brethren.

 

[MamaZ]

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

Awe still sticking to the tradtions of man I see. Jesus gave John the responsibility to care for Mary as He was in emense pain and dying and one has to argue why John? This shows the very selflessness of Christ even in the time of His gross death. We do not recoginze anyone according to the flesh. This is what Jesus meant when He told us that it is not according to the flesh that anyone is my brother mother or sisters but only those who do the will of the Father that are my true mother brother and sisters. Context of the whole written word is important..

 

[lionroar0]

Awe still sticking to the tradtions of man I see. Jesus gave John the responsibility to care for Mary as He was in emense pain and dying and one has to argue why John? This shows the very selflessness of Christ even in the time of His gross death. We do not recoginze anyone according to the flesh. This is what Jesus meant when He told us that it is not according to the flesh that anyone is my brother mother or sisters but only those who do the will of the Father that are my true mother brother and sisters. Context of the whole written word is important..

No we are sticking to scripture. It is the traditions of man that are not supported by scripture.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Yes, this is all I was stating.
Jesus was clear that He'd already addressed the issue
and yet they ran crying rather than trusting Him, Him
who they were so very close to.


Hey there lion!

No, I know that Jesus cares very much for our pain
and lives to interceed on our behalf.
I was just looking at the Lazerus story, and in that
particular example, it appears Jesus is disappointed
that they ignored what He'd already said.
God always has the provision ready before we
need it. He'd already worked it out, and so was
in no hurry to get there. They were probably ticked
at Him, (it's been days! he's probably stinking by now!)
I added the exclamation, feel free to disregard my
theory.

love,
sunlover


Thank you for the rep message Philothei LOL
The pastors do agree with you.
It's alright, and I dont mind if I'm wrong.
Thank you for the love.
And right back atcha!

Let's go over it.

Who did he state this to.

When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."

Who was there when He said this?

Also did those that were weeping know that He was coming back?

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

One must understand that Jesus kingdom is not of this world. It is a Spiritual Kingdom. So therefore who we are in the flesh other than Christ for He is Emmanuel does not make a difference to who we are in the Spiritual Kingdom. So those family members who do not have Christ are not family members according to the Spirit. They are in the flesh though. Which is only temporary. It is the Spiritual that is eternal. Jesus was constantly reminding and teaching us this in the scripture. This is why tradtion is of this world and not of Gods Kingdom. The words that He speaks are Spirit, they are truth, and they are life to those who find them.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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

I don't propose to know what Christ would have done on his way to the Cross.

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

ah yes.. the "Jesus did every single thing like the Jews would expect him to" argument.

sorry, doesn't wash.

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.

right. And last I checked, I didn't have a teaching, or a dogma that indicated one or the other MUST be true. I just go with what makes sense, instead of following a tradition supported by nothing but it's own tradition.

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.

remember that it isn't me that says it MUST be any of those terms. (BTW, it's mute, not moot. just helping, not mocking! )

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...

yes, it sounds logical, specifically since 1) almost all the believers of Christ ran away. Very few showed up. and 2) scripture states that his brothers thought he was nuts. It does NOT show when and if all of them changed their minds about that.

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

Because Jesus trusted John. there need be no more reason than this.

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...

actually, there is MUCH said in the bible about the so called brothers of Christ. It is not silent, it is DEBATABLE.

 

[Thekla]

I don't understand what you are saying here. All Good examples of Godly men and women for sure. But still none are equal with Christ.

I don't recall anyone saying any creation was or is equal to the creator

 

[Thekla]

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?

then why would he persistently engage in misrepresentation of our teachings ? Isn't that 'spreading rumors'

 

[Thekla]

right. And last I checked, I didn't have a teaching, or a dogma that indicated one or the other MUST be true. I just go with what makes sense, instead of following a tradition supported by nothing but it's own tradition.

and a knowledge of the contemporary culture and language from which the terminology arose ... (and is still in use)

yes, it sounds logical, specifically since 1) almost all the believers of Christ ran away. Very few showed up. and 2) scripture states that his brothers thought he was nuts. It does NOT show when and if all of them changed their minds about that.

you mean, Christ didn't know that they would become Christians after the Resurrection

Because Jesus trusted John. there need be no more reason than this.

wow - He didn't trust the future first bishop of Jerusalem - the apostles seriously messed up in respecting and appointing James the Just !

actually, there is MUCH said in the bible about the so called brothers of Christ. It is not silent, it is DEBATABLE.

yeah, like one of them is named Joses/Joseph, and children were not given the same name as the parent

 

[Uphill Battle]

and a knowledge of the contemporary culture and language from which the terminology arose ... (and is still in use)

which, of course, doesn't indicate any more strongly for it being cousins, or kin, than brothers. It could be either. And with someone pointing out that greek was used for the NT... it seems more likely that brother, means... brother.

you mean, Christ didn't know that they would become Christians after the Resurrection

sure he would. And that is irrelevant.

wow - He didn't trust the future first bishop of Jerusalem - the apostles seriously messed up in respecting and appointing James the Just !

I suggested no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

yeah, like one of them is named Joses/Joseph, and children were not given the same name as the parent

is that a fact.

 

[Rick Otto]

then why would he persistently engage in misrepresentation of our teachings ? Isn't that 'spreading rumors'

He is saying any (not just "your") 'teaching' on a supposed, not fact-based perpetual virginity, is "hearsay" (rumor).

There are no unambiguous facts that speak directly about Mary's sex life at all without resort to speculation.

The focus on Mary's equipment was in scripture, verbaly redirected by Jesus Himself to her spiritual disposition instead. Of course I understand that the point of the PV theory is to point out her uniquely elevated spirituality, but it is amiss on that point as well according to the forementioned quote of her son, who when redirecting focus from her paps & womb to her obedience, also removed her personal identity & replaced it with 'anyone' ("they") who hears & obeys God.

Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

 

[Philothei]

[QUOTE]I just go with what makes sense, instead of following a tradition supported by nothing but it's own tradition.[/QUOTE]
Makes sense to who? YOU... You are then your own pope... how is this any different? You have a whole community of believers who agree upon what is right. Tradition is not based on ....tradition.. It is based on people who collectively were empowered by the Holy Spirit and guided by it... Pentecost was a real event and the Apostles were "assembled" to recieve the Holy Spirit... they were not "enlightened" by their own ....logic... their sense.. individually. There was a skopos for that conciliarity. Also Christ says when 2 or 3 are gathered...I am in their midst... The community of the many as of Ecclesia that is where God resides.
Lot of things make sense until someone is challenged...Why shall I follow the subjectivity of one?