Speak lovingly of Mary

[jckstraw72]

Fool Satan? Please.. God does not need to fool anyone.. He is God

wow. i really never would have imagined that people would have a problem with God thwarting Satan's plans ... guess it takes all kinds of leaps just to downplay the Mother of our Lord.

 

[MamaZ]

They interpret this to mean, ‘I have taken a vow never to know a man.’ This eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 394)

 

[jckstraw72]

and your eisegesis was first suggested in probably like the 1800s or something ... even the Reformers accepted the obvious truth of Scripture.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Philothei;yeah sure sure whatever you say..

No need to take a patronizing tone, mam'.

My point is why would you believe it if it is not?

Because "Trinity" is a description of the belief and my description of a belief doesn't need to be in the scripture for me to believe it, just good reason to believe it, like the three distinct persons being present in one place at one time (JC's baptism). No such scriptural evidence is present for Mary's PV, so it amounts to rumor.

Whether it is "imaginative speculation" does not prove anything...

Sure it does. It proves the dogma is pure fantasy.

I can say the same about Trinity...

...And it would be a witness against you. It would prove your irrationality on the subject so advise you don't.

I will not give up anything that testifies to falshood just because you are telling it so...

So then you have a such a problem with me that you can't even accept truth from me?

And you still cannot prove it... so you let it alone.

I proved what I said more than once & you continue to deny it and I haven't let it alone yet you say I did. We have a word to describe people who do that.

Protestants always

Right off the bat you lump a diverse group together... I sense "smear tactic"...

set those two double standards

...yep, there's the smear...

with the Trinity and the canon of the Bible...

The standard for both the Trinity & PV is scriptural evidence. No double standard there. Your attempt to distract is ineffective.

Those two who cannot support since there are no where in the Bible to be found....

I would say that about PV, but the Trinity is illustrated explicitly at Jesus' baptism. It sounds like you are simply parroting objections you don't realy understand.

 

[Kristos]

Thank you for your usual erudite response.

I believe that you have made my point that there are no direct references in the Bible regarding the marital life of Mary and Joseph. It would be impossible for anyone to read into your verses from Ezekiel the meanings which you ascribe to it without forcing the dogma of EV through the eye (or gate) of the needle. There is no direct mention of Mary, virgins, sex, progeny, intercourse, or anything else related to the meaning which you apply to these verses. If "This is the scriptural basis - like or not. And it has been for a very long time!" then we are in agreement that there is no directscriptural basis for your belief,

Not really. As far as prophecy goes, this is pretty direct. Most prophecies concern Christ Himself are no more direct, yet are fully embraced. When coupled with supporting data like the Protoevangelium, then it's very clear. The OT Scritpures hit the point in all three area - the Law, see story of Jacob's ladder, Mary is prefigured by the ladder and the house and the gate. The Prophets - Ezekiel, Mary as the house and the gate that will be shut. And the Wisdom - Proverbs 9, again we see the house that wisdom built. These are all harmonized in the orthodox church as pointing to Mary's PV. This is attested to through the ages as the Truth, as shown in my last post - from the 1st century until present. Oddly, from a historical perspective, there was more controversy over the divinity of Christ than this.

I do not know of any direct or indirect scripture that would support the opposing view.

I do not know of any ECF that held the opposing view (except Tertullian, but calling him a true ECF might be a stretch).

I do not know of any apocryphal work that holds the opposing view.

 

[Kristos]

Well to this statement I have to disagree with because of this

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.

Yes, they are and they are completely harmonized to me.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When coupled with supporting data like the Protoevangelium, then it's very clear.

As everyone knows, the Protoevangelium says NOTHING about Mary being a PERPETUAL VIRGIN. Nothing. Thus, it offers NO substantiation for this DOMGA. None.

This is attested to through the ages as the Truth, as shown in my last post - from the 1st century until present.

I'll renew my request. Please give me just 5 quotes (that's all, just 5) from the First Century form anyone that each specially state that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. That, of course, will only indicate that 5 people thought is true and is entirely unrelated to the issue of substantiation. Of course, the RCC and EO both reject even more than 5 giving an opinion as substantiation for Dogma (or even opinion) but I'll accept it since I subject the RCC to a far, far, far easier and lower "bar" than it itself insists on.







.

 

[MamaZ]

wow. i really never would have imagined that people would have a problem with God thwarting Satan's plans ... guess it takes all kinds of leaps just to downplay the Mother of our Lord.

I don't have a problem with God thwarting satans plans.. I DO have a problem with people try to tell me God deceives people.

 

[jckstraw72]

the very act of having a virgin be pregnant seems "deceptive" -- people are going to assume she has had sex. God is not deceiving people, but protecting His Christ.

 

[jckstraw72]

CJ you know that the proof you are asking for is ridiculous. Show me 5 people in the first century writing about the Trinity, or the canon of Scripture.

 

[Philothei]

The vows of her betrothal was "broken" with her pregancy outside of that... betrothal... That is why Joseph is told to marry her by the Angel 'despite" of her out of marriage pregnancy and again it could have been a year or so "after" her betrothal ... thus she had to be virgin.. thus far. She broke the "vow" of having a child from another ...in marriage was that deception in God's part? That is ridiculous...

 

[Philothei]

CJ you know that the proof you are asking for is ridiculous. Show me 5 people in the first century writing about the Trinity, or the canon of Scripture.

lol....good one....ignore buttons are a wonderfu invention... and very much useful...

 

[Philothei]

They interpret this to mean, ‘I have taken a vow never to know a man.’ This eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 394)

Thank you and Hypolytus is sayig that in around at C. 200 AD...

 

[Thekla]

I don't have a problem with God thwarting satans plans.. I DO have a problem with people try to tell me God deceives people.

then, of course, you accept that Christ leaving Mary in the care of John (who was not her son) attests that she had no other children

 

[Thekla]

The text shows that when Gabriel summoned Mary that she was not married as of yet.. This is why she states she was not knowing a man. It is in the presense text. the verb to know (??????? gin?sk?) is in the present active indicative If God wanted to hide Mary from men why was it prophecied that this was going to happen. You guys make no sense..

the tense denotes a statement of fact WITHOUT REGARD TO TIME

Christ uses the same tense in John 8:58 -- so it can be used by your analysis to show that there is a time when Christ was NOT God

 

[Thekla]

Read the whole context of the whole counsel of Gods written word. I have given examples of Paul speaking of Relatives and Paul speaking of brother..

the Greek does not exclusively mean sibling

 

[Thekla]

How without speculation, does her asking Gabriel how she will give birth get projected into a life long committment to chastity? Remember she was espoused to Joseph before Gabriel showed up.
Is the tense of one word what you base your conclusion about a life long committment to chastity? Seems like a leap AND a stretch.

show me where she limits the verb to show that the statement does NOT apply to the future

 

[Thekla]

The words say that Mary was a virgin at the Announciation.
There are no words saying that Mary is a PERPETUAL virgin.

You seem to constantly confuse the interpretation of 3 denominations with what Luke penned by inspiration, you are simply imposing and imputing what you WISH God had caused Luke to pen with what He actually did.





.

provide evidence for your assertion

 

[Thekla]

Don't hold your breath, we've been waiting for centuries....



I'd add, even giving the specific quote of ANYONE (even a single heretic) who clearly knew Mary and who wrote during her lifetime that she was a PERPETUAL Virgin. We have heretics (many, many of them) who knew Joseph Smith and who wrote during his lifetime that all the claims about him were true - and this our Catholic and Orthodox friends reject as inadequate substantiation, so let's have at least much LESS to substantiate this DOGMA of Mary as a Perpetual Virgin. If not from God in Scripture, then from someone - anyone - who clearly knew her and clearly states that she was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN.



Why does this matter?

1. Because she's our Mother and we love, adore, esteem and venerate her.

2. Because truth matters; to spread falsehood is NOT "loving" (the issue of this thread) NO MATTER HOW WELL INTENDED.

3. Because Catholics reject as inadequate far, far, far better substantiation than what has been offered here to support this DOGMA.


"Rumor." An unsubstantiated popularly held story or report. According to the Catholic Catechism, to spread a rumor is a sin and thus UNloving. Thus, the singular issue here is this: Is this report substantiated in a manner the RCC or EO itself accepts as valid and sufficient for a DOGMA?


Yes, we're waiting.
And waiting.
And waiting.


Because love and respect MATTER, especially when speaking of Our Mother, Our Blessed Lady.







.







.

but you have not yet provided evidence that the NT is the same as the writings of the 1st century; what is the point of continuing if you can't even show with evidence of ANY KIND that we are reading the correct/real NT ?

 

[Thekla]

They interpret this to mean, ‘I have taken a vow never to know a man.’ This eisegesis was first suggested by Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 394)

why do you call what Gregory of Nyssa said "eisegesis" when you cannot provide supporting evidence for your own assertions ?