Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

How is your not needing scriptural substantiation just like Protestants finding scriptural substantiation for the Trinity?

Because the substantiation we find you you do not accept. Thekla present to you the scriptural basis in which also many theologians in the EO and RC find that substantiation but then again you also deny....YOU though so conveniently accept it as "valid" for the Trinitarian dogma...

 

[MamaZ]

Well probably because we see that we are to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So since we see also in the scriptures that If Jesus did not Go away the Holy Spirit would not come.. And since we also see that the Holy Spirit was with God in the very beginning of the creation of the world just as the Word was then it is pretty evident for the three wouldn't you say? But with Mary we see not that she never had any other children in fact the scripturs lead us to believe that she did and names them. And we also see in scripture where God told Joseph to take Mary as his wife. And we see eye witness accounts of the people living in the same hometown knowing this family comment on these..

 

[Thekla]

And we also see in scripture where God told Joseph to take Mary as his wife.

the word translated as wife also, in Greek, means betrothed

And we see eye witness accounts of the people living in the same hometown knowing this family comment on these..

and the eyewitnesses use a term that can mean any of more than half a dozen relationships

 

[MamaZ]

the word translated as wife also, in Greek, means betrothed


Wow Thelka they were already betrothed before the Angel even greeted Mary. So When God told Joseph to take her as his wife it is pretty evident what he meant.

and the eyewitnesses use a term that can mean any of more than half a dozen relationships

Oh the webs we weave when we try to deceive. We have heard so many tales to explain away scripture such as well it could mean cousins when indeed in the greek the word for cousin was not used.
Then we heard the tale that Joseph was old and married before and those where step children to Mary..
So I ask. What does it matter if Mary had other children? What does this take away from other than Mary was not who some people hold her up to be but was indeed a normal woman with normal functions living a normal married life who believed in Christ and was indeed born again and part of the Body of Christ and indeed a sister in the Lord to all woman who believe in Christ?

 

[Thekla]

Oh the webs we weave when we try to deceive. We have heard so many tales to explain away scripture such as well it could mean cousins when indeed in the greek the word for cousin was not used.

please do not make such an accusation , it is not my intent to deceive; I have carefully explained the definition of the word and its use, I have cited supporting evidence (for example on naming custom). The only response I have been given is unsupported opinion.

please read the posts carefully

and Gabriel does not say wife; he uses the accusative form of guni which means woman, not wife !

So I ask. What does it matter if Mary had other children? What does this take away from other than Mary was not who some people hold her up to be but was indeed a normal woman with normal functions living a normal married life who believed in Christ and was indeed born again and part of the Body of Christ and indeed a sister in the Lord to all woman who believe in Christ?

this is your opinion, but you have not given any argument to support it

and you seem to refuse to really consider what I have posted; please explain why Mary answers in the continuous tense (which includes all of the future) in the way that she does

 

[Rick Otto]

Because the substantiation we find you you do not accept. Thekla present to you the scriptural basis in which also many theologians in the EO and RC find that substantiation but then again you also deny....YOU though so conveniently accept it as "valid" for the Trinitarian dogma...

The convenience is a result of scriptural substantiation that isn't so full of ambiguities that one wonders how the Greeks ever knew what each other were talking about.
It is easy to accept three distinct divine personages explicitly described as present at the baptism of Jesus. Not so easy to accept complicated parsing about condition with no comparable explicit rendering in scripture.
Rather it is YOU who find a comparable lack of substantiation as conveniently acceptable because it caters to your affectionate preference.
To say that the substantiation of PV is the same as the substantiation of the Trinity is not only untrue, if it were, you'd never bother to resort to a tradition that substantiates nothing more than the existence of the belief in PV in the 1st place.

The best you can do is secure the shadow of a doubt that PV isn't true by extremely arguable parsing, the likes of which only a few of you seem able to accomplish.
That's a lot of effort of dubious effect to aquire theoretical "graces" that are already supplied in abundance by Christ.

 

[Thekla]

why is the analysis "extremely arguable"

(especially when the opposition offers little or no argument or analysis)

 

[Rick Otto]

why is the analysis "extremely arguable"

(especially when the opposition offers little or no argument or analysis)

The answer is in your own words:

the eyewitnesses use a term that can mean any of more than half a dozen relationships

 

[Thekla]

The answer is in your own words:

this is only some of the offered analysis

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

this is only some of the offered analysis

Greetins Thekla!! Yah, analysis is good sometimes

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5523201

Matt 16:18 `And I yet to thee am saying, that thou art peter, and upon this/tauth <3778>, the rock I shall be building of Me the Out-Called, and gates of hades not shall be prevailing/kat-iscusousin <2729> (5692) of her;

Acts 6:10 And not they were strong/iscuon <2480> (5707) to withstand to the Wisdom and to the Spirit to which he talked. [Revelation 12:7]

 

[MamaZ]

please do not make such an accusation , it is not my intent to deceive; I have carefully explained the definition of the word and its use, I have cited supporting evidence (for example on naming custom). The only response I have been given is unsupported opinion.

please read the posts carefully

and Gabriel does not say wife; he uses the accusative form of guni which means woman, not wife !



this is your opinion, but you have not given any argument to support it

and you seem to refuse to really consider what I have posted; please explain why Mary answers in the continuous tense (which includes all of the future) in the way that she does

with what a word means will depend upon what sentence it is being used in. Such as brothers and those eyewitnesses of those that we have recorded in the bible. The word for cousin was not used. So if they were cousins why then did they not use that word. We see Paul in scripture speaking of His kinsmen.. Here is the word used
suggene&#772;s; from G4862 and G1085; congenital, hence akin to, subst. a kinsman, relative: - kinsman (1), kinsmen (3), relative (1), relatives (6).

Then we see where Paul states James the Lords brother and uses this word.
adelphos; from G1 (as a cop. pref.) and &#948;&#949;&#955;&#966;&#965;&#769;&#962; delphus (womb); a brother: - believing husband (1), brethren (170), brethren *(13), brother (111), brother’s (8), brothers (40).
So if these that the scripture states as being brothers were only realatives then the word for that would have been used.. It is not confusing unless one cannot accept the very simple truth of the scriptures.. That Jesus had brothers and sisters.. That Mary and Joseph were a married couple.

 

[jckstraw72]

That Jesus had brothers and sisters.. That Mary and Joseph were a married couple.

why wasnt it so simple to any Christians for like 1700 years? How come its so obvious to you and not anyone in all of Church history?

 

[Rick Otto]

Thinking for oneself is a relatively new invention of Western civilisation.
(Howdy jackster! Haven't seen yer smilin' face in a while. Nice pic)

 

[jckstraw72]

Thinking for oneself is a relatively new invention of Western civilisation.

exactly. its not of the Apostles.

ahoy hoy to yee as well.

 

[Philothei]

why wasnt it so simple to any Christians for like 1700 years? How come its so obvious to you and not anyone in all of Church history?

And mind you it is lot like we found some new historical evidence that disproves the ever-virginity of Mary.... If that would have been the case I would gladly realize (and others I am sure) the folly of such a belief....

It is our times invention as the overwhelming majority of Prtotestant "fathers" agree with the ever-virginity belief.

 

[Philothei]

The convenience is a result of scriptural substantiation that isn't so full of ambiguities that one wonders how the Greeks ever knew what each other were talking about.

The Greek language is the richest language of the Ancient world.... Why would the people be able to communicate in it? The evangelists used "exact" words that they meant the meaning they wished to convey. Make no mistake here. It is just that they never knew the generations to come would ever doubt something it was so commonly believed such as the ever-virginity and people would actually doubt it (?)... As early as 200 Hypolytus writes about her ever-virginity kind of annoyed someone whould ever doubt it....
Like many other times "dogma" did not come up unless someone said something totally "off the wall" then the truth of the gospel was safeguarded....example you dear "trinitarian dogma" it was defended because there was a need as people started saying "crazy" things about it... It was never formulated IN THE BIBLE...but it was defended and explained by the fathers much later...

It is easy to accept three distinct divine personages explicitly described as present at the baptism of Jesus.

I do not see how..I mean one can say God just happened to be there and the dove is not the Holy spirit but an "accidental" visitor.... see how simple one can 'rationalize" it... if they really want to... Among them the non-Trinitarian Protos who fight with y'all....hehehe.....

Not so easy to accept complicated parsing about condition with no comparable explicit rendering in scripture.

We already presented to you the scriptural passages that prove it..It is YOU who do not agree with ...just like I can or cannot agree with the Holy Trinity be in the Bible...Where does it say the word "trinity" .....you deduce that just like we deduce the ever-virginity....

Rather it is YOU who find a comparable lack of substantiation as conveniently acceptable because it caters to your affectionate preference.

Substantiation is on the eyes of the beholder as per the word Trinity not in the Scripture...thus not scriptural.

To say that the substantiation of PV is the same as the substantiation of the Trinity is not only untrue, if it were, you'd never bother to resort to a tradition that substantiates nothing more than the existence of the belief in PV in the 1st place.

But we accept the "interpretation" of the Holy Trinity in the Bible and we have the Fathers who testify to it also .... The Father's interpretation is founded in the scripture...Too bad you have ONLY scripture to go by...

The best you can do is secure the shadow of a doubt that PV isn't true by extremely arguable parsing, the likes of which only a few of you seem able to accomplish.

I think if someonw reviews this thread they can find pretty much information and argument for the Aeiparthenia of Theotokos to convience them to look into it further. On the contrary we have seen repetitions, upon repetitions, and arguments void of any evidence for the contrary.... If I were you I would be wondering myself why it seems that the Bible does not openly shows those brothers and sisters at the crucifixion of Christ.....what his "many" siblings did not CARE for HIM??? and their mother who was in deep sorrow?? That right there should be an alarming point for the claiming of Mary's virginity after her marriage and the fact that Joseph was so old...

That's a lot of effort of dubious effect to aquire theoretical "graces" that are already supplied in abundance by Christ.

Mary did not have "extra" grace... She did have a pious disposition though and that has been verified many many times over and over...She had an Apostolic "career" if you will and that would involve a celibant life style... She was there during Pentecost and she recieved the Holy Spirit...The Gospel mentions her for a reason...

We never denied any abudance of the Grace of Christ either. Mary was not concieved immaculately and still a "theologoumenon" (questionable) for the EO. We do not elevate Her into a Mediatrix (spelling?) and we neither ONLY pray to her for intercession... You have to realize that honoring someone does not equate worshiping them as we do worship Christ and God and His most precious Holy Spirit.

 

[Philothei]

Well probably because we see that we are to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So since we see also in the scriptures that If Jesus did not Go away the Holy Spirit would not come.. And since we also see that the Holy Spirit was with God in the very beginning of the creation of the world just as the Word was then it is pretty evident for the three wouldn't you say? But with Mary we see not that she never had any other children in fact the scripturs lead us to believe that she did and names them. And we also see in scripture where God told Joseph to take Mary as his wife. And we see eye witness accounts of the people living in the same hometown knowing this family comment on these..

That is a little oversimplified explanation that does not connect scripture and theology... The word "trinity" is not even mentioned... ha??? wow imagine that and you still believe it ...How come? I can easily claim that the holy spirit was a creation of God and be wow.....(sh...heretical)...

I am still not convienced....

 

[Philothei]

with what a word means will depend upon what sentence it is being used in. Such as brothers and those eyewitnesses of those that we have recorded in the bible. The word for cousin was not used. So if they were cousins why then did they not use that word. We see Paul in scripture speaking of His kinsmen.. Here is the word used
suggene&#772;s; from G4862 and G1085; congenital, hence akin to, subst. a kinsman, relative: - kinsman (1), kinsmen (3), relative (1), relatives (6).

Then we see where Paul states James the Lords brother and uses this word.
adelphos; from G1 (as a cop. pref.) and &#948;&#949;&#955;&#966;&#965;&#769;&#962;delphus (womb); a brother: - believing husband (1), brethren (170), brethren *(13), brother (111), brother&#8217;s (8), brothers (40).
So if these that the scripture states as being brothers were only realatives then the word for that would have been used.. It is not confusing unless one cannot accept the very simple truth of the scriptures.. That Jesus had brothers and sisters.. That Mary and Joseph were a married couple.

__________________

And circular we go....Paul used the word 'brother" for his epistles... meaning "brethren"

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Greek language is the richest language of the Ancient world.... Why would the people be able to communicate in it? The evangelists used "exact" words that they meant the meaning they wished to convey. Make no mistake here. It is just that they never knew the generations to come would ever doubt something it was so commonly believed such as the ever-virginity and people would actually doubt it (?)... As early as 200 Hypolytus writes about her ever-virginity kind of annoyed someone whould ever doubt it....

The Greek language is a wonderfully precise language with a very exacting grammar and vocabulary. Unlike Hebrew, which lacks the grammatical forms and often contains words carrying multiple meanings, Greek rarely does any such thing. If, as I stated previously, three individual authors recorded that Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus were standing outside wishing to see Him and He, turning to His disciples, called all who obey God His brothers, sisters, and mother (all the same Greek words, mind you in all of the passages) it becomes absurd to assume that the same word means one thing in a portion of the passage and a very different thing in a portion of the same passage. At the very best, it is inconsistent.

Like many other times "dogma" did not come up unless someone said something totally "off the wall" then the truth of the gospel was safeguarded....example you dear "trinitarian dogma" it was defended because there was a need as people started saying "crazy" things about it... It was never formulated IN THE BIBLE...but it was defended and explained by the fathers much later...

This is irrelevant to the OP.

I do not see how..I mean one can say God just happened to be there and the dove is not the Holy spirit but an "accidental" visitor.... see how simple one can 'rationalize" it... if they really want to... Among them the non-Trinitarian Protos who fight with y'all....hehehe.....

This is irrelevant to the OP.

We already presented to you the scriptural passages that prove it..It is YOU who do not agree with ...just like I can or cannot agree with the Holy Trinity be in the Bible...Where does it say the word "trinity" .....you deduce that just like we deduce the ever-virginity....

You have produced one passage in Ezekiel which, at the very best, may possibly, maybe, very indirectly mean the gate of one's lips, which are to be sealed from speaking falsehood and error.

Substantiation is on the eyes of the beholder as per the word Trinity not in the Scripture...thus not scriptural.

But we accept the "interpretation" of the Holy Trinity in the Bible and we have the Fathers who testify to it also .... The Father's interpretation is founded in the scripture...Too bad you have ONLY scripture to go by...

This is irrelevant to the OP.

I think if someonw reviews this thread they can find pretty much information and argument for the Aeiparthenia of Theotokos to convience them to look into it further. On the contrary we have seen repetitions, upon repetitions, and arguments void of any evidence for the contrary.... If I were you I would be wondering myself why it seems that the Bible does not openly shows those brothers and sisters at the crucifixion of Christ.....what his "many" siblings did not CARE for HIM??? and their mother who was in deep sorrow?? That right there should be an alarming point for the claiming of Mary's virginity after her marriage and the fact that Joseph was so old...

How have you established the "fact that Joseph was so old . . ."? It assuredly is never mentioned in the Bible.

Mary did not have "extra" grace... She did have a pious disposition though and that has been verified many many times over and over...She had an Apostolic "career" if you will and that would involve a celibant life style... She was there during Pentecost and she recieved the Holy Spirit...The Gospel mentions her for a reason...

So, now we have Mary being elevated to an "Apostolic career, if you will and that would involve a celibant (sic) life style." First, I take this to be your personal pious opinion and certainly not that of either the Catholic or Orthodox churches. Second, how is that Peter and other apostles were married, according to scripture, but that an Apostolic career involved a celibate lifestyle? Is May somehow more Apostolic than the Apostles?

We never denied any abudance of the Grace of Christ either. Mary was not concieved immaculately and still a "theologoumenon" (questionable) for the EO. We do not elevate Her into a Mediatrix (spelling?) and we neither ONLY pray to her for intercession... You have to realize that honoring someone does not equate worshiping them as we do worship Christ and God and His most precious Holy Spirit.

Thank you for providing your views on the matter.

 

[Philothei]

Thank you for providing your views on the matter.

Why do I sense sarcasm in your remark? It is not "a" view... It is a whole Chruch's view