Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

This is irrelevant to the OP.

Much relevant as it points our to how dogma is formulated. You are non-Trinitarian or you do cannot diffent it either from the Bible?

 

[Philothei]

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?

Not all apostles took their families to their apostolic missions. Some travelled alone. The very fact she was there at Pentecost makes her as much an Apostle like anyone else... who recieved the Holy Spirit or you believe it was denied to her...

 

[Philothei]

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.

If you are such an expert in the Greek language then show me where the word "brother" is NOT used to mean cousin or brethren ....It is used interchangably in the Bible so there goes your theory. My guess is and a pretty good one that there was no need to specify because everyone knew Christ had no brother or sisters.... thus no one whould mistake it as such. I cannot imagine if the evangelist though it was so important to mention his "sisters" and "bothers" he would not have put it in a more "emphasis" so that we reading would be clear that he was referring to his "immediate" relatives.....Especially when after that verse he goes on to say that "everyone is his brother and sister"..... that is that we can all of us be His "spiritual relatives" ....as his cousins were.

I insist that the fact these siblings were not present at the cross scene fortifies the case that they were not siblings but cousins or step-children. Either way Christ entrusted his mother's care to John... thus negating the fact that there were no any other siblings involved.

 

[MamaZ]

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?

This dogma didn't surface until much later. For we do not read in scripture where the Apostles ever mentioned Mary but once in Acts. Where she was among believers praying. So if this was truth why was it not recorded by the Apostles for all to see and be binding?

 

[MamaZ]

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.

One must realize we as Protestant people do not follow after the teaching of men but of the teaching of scripture which has very little to say about Mary after the Gospels. In fact she is not even mentioned after the book of Acts.

 

[MamaZ]

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...


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.....


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....

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...

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...




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.

Apostles did not have a clibant life.. Tee hee.. Peter was Married and in fact Jesus healed His mother in law. Paul we know was single in His journey.

 

[Thekla]

hello, bbbbbbb

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.

1. yes, Greek is precise, and where multiple meanings are present in one term, the precision is rendered by limitation; Plato, for example, limits the definition of adelphos by description. The Gospel writers do not limit the term adelphos, rendering its use in the passages in question to the broadest (or summarized) meaning. As I have pointed out, at least one of the adelphos mentioned is most likely not a child of Joseph. Absent evidence of the remarriage of Mary (upon the death of Joseph), this points to the broad or "summary" meaning of adelphos.

2. the tense used by Mary in response to Gabriel is continuous. Where this tense is used to point to a temporary situation (as in the passages LLoJ quoted from Corinthians), the author limits the continuous sense of the verb by a further descriptive. No such limitation is provided by Mary; hence, the term adelphos cannot be understood as children of Mary unless:
a. the Bible is in error -or-
b. Mary lied

 

[Philothei]

In fact she is not even mentioned after the book of Acts.

Why would she be mentioned in the epistles?....

 

[Philothei]

hello, bbbbbbb



1. yes, Greek is precise, and where multiple meanings are present in one term, the precision is rendered by limitation; Plato, for example, limits the definition of adelphos by description. The Gospel writers do not limit the term adelphos, rendering its use in the passages in question to the broadest (or summarized) meaning. As I have pointed out, at least one of the adelphos mentioned is most likely not a child of Joseph. Absent evidence of the remarriage of Mary (upon the death of Joseph), this points to the broad or "summary" meaning of adelphos.

2. the tense used by Mary in response to Gabriel is continuous. Where this tense is used to point to a temporary situation (as in the passages LLoJ quoted from Corinthians), the author limits the continuous sense of the verb by a further descriptive. No such limitation is provided by Mary; hence, the term adelphos cannot be understood as children of Mary unless:
a. the Bible is in error -or-
b. Mary lied

I think we should bump this as sometimes people here do not seem to have it "register"... and I know for sure you have put out this post before but people "conveniently" ingore to answer or when they answer they just say.....well... it is not true....This is no proof for disputing it... Where is the evidence of what you claim?

 

[MamaZ]

So if Mary were a PV why Did God tell Joseph to take Mary as His wife?

 

[MamaZ]

Why would she be mentioned in the epistles?....

Why indeed. Why do people assume that she is anything other than a normal woman with normal life style? If indeed Mary were to be held as some hold her such as PV Queen and so forth why in all the epistles is this not spoken of? For we do not see recorded by the Apostles any of such.

 

[MamaZ]

Not all apostles took their families to their apostolic missions. Some travelled alone. The very fact she was there at Pentecost makes her as much an Apostle like anyone else... who recieved the Holy Spirit or you believe it was denied to her...

So now you are saying here that only the Apostles have the Holy Spirit?

 

[Thekla]

One must realize we as Protestant people do not follow after the teaching of men but of the teaching of scripture which has very little to say about Mary after the Gospels. In fact she is not even mentioned after the book of Acts.

The scripture in Luke teaches that Mary did not, does not, and will not "know a man"; to say otherwise is not a teaching of scripture, but a teaching of men.

 

[Philothei]

So now you are saying here that only the Apostles have the Holy Spirit?

You read into things and twist things.. I say. No, it just that is the time when the Holy Spirit was sent to the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is forever present in its Chruch from then on....The Apostles were the ones sent out to evangelize and they were given many gifts among them was the knowledge of many languages....

 

[Philothei]

Why indeed. Why do people assume that she is anything other than a normal woman with normal life style? If indeed Mary were to be held as some hold her such as PV Queen and so forth why in all the epistles is this not spoken of? For we do not see recorded by the Apostles any of such.

You are missing the point again... It has nothing to do with Mary being "simple woman" rather with her calling. She was "set apart" or not? She accepted a calling from God and thus it would be less than impious to be "just another woman"....She was a special woman with a special calling from God. That ought to tell ya something. The reason she is not mentioned in the Epistles? Do you know why the Apostles wrote the Epistles? What was the skopos (purpose) of writting them?

 

[Philothei]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

One must realize we as Protestant people do not follow after the teaching of men but of the teaching of scripture which has very little to say about Mary after the Gospels. In fact she is not even mentioned after the book of Acts.
​

The scripture in Luke teaches that Mary did not, does not, and will not "know a man"; to say otherwise is not a teaching of scripture, but a teaching of men.

That is okay instead of Mamaz dealing with your post....she is off a tangent...

 

[MamaZ]

Why indeed. Why do people assume that she is anything other than a normal woman with normal life style? If indeed Mary were to be held as some hold her such as PV Queen and so forth why in all the epistles is this not spoken of? For we do not see recorded by the Apostles any of such.

It teaches that Mary was not knowing a man. Read in context. For she was indeed at this time a virgin. Now why did God instruct Joseph to take Mary as his wife?

 

[MamaZ]

If Mary declared she was to never know a man why on earth would she be betrothed to Joseph when the angel appeared to her?

 

[Philothei]

So if Mary were a PV why Did God tell Joseph to take Mary as His wife?

Mary was given to a man to be legitemized of having Christ and thus Christ was a legitemate child. She had to be protected and so Joseph listened to the Angel and he took Mary to be his bettrothled spouse. The word wife is not there in the Greek as it says 'woman'.

 

[Thekla]

It teaches that Mary was not knowing a man. Read in context. For she was indeed at this time a virgin. Now why did God instruct Joseph to take Mary as his wife?

Mary's statement includes the future; please read the verse in context - the context includes a span of time that includes her future with Joseph.