Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

No need to take a patronizing tone, mam'.


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.


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


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


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

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.

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

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


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

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.

In a nutshell you got no proof...

I have no plans of disproving the Trinity as I believe the whole "wisdom" of the Chruch Tradition on it... You have the problem since you have a description of the what we call Trinity, and you are left with no real name or dogma, because you have to get your dogma and the name from our church tradition. How come you call it the same? Where the word Trinity comes from? Point to me that the ECF did not come up with it? If Trinity was a word given by the Fathers then why you would not accept the EV that also came fromt the same source? It beats me .....one is tradition and the other too... You just pick and chose.. I am not discracting I am stating the parallels so others can see your folly... that is all....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the tense denotes a statement of fact WITHOUT REGARD TO TIME

You keep stressing the baselessness of your DOGMA.....


How does the fact that the term implies NOTHING about PERPETUAL dogmatically substantiate the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary? Obviously, it doesn't - it undermines it.


You continue to insist on revealing that your "hand" is entirely, completely empty; you have no substantiation at all - much less dogmatic substantiation of a nature and level that is accepted from others.


"Rumor." A popularly held but unsubstatiation report or story; to spread such is a sin (according to the Catholic Catechism) and therefore is NOT "loving" (the issue of this thread) no matter how innocently intended.






.






.

 

[Thekla]

Virgin. Not knowing a man.. She was not knowing a man for she was not married but only betrothed to Joseph at this time. So now you tell me why a woman that had no plans of ever knowing a man would betroth herself to a man? Read the word in the whole context of the whole scriptures.. Not just taking one word out and expounding on that one word without putting it in the context of the message being presented..

remember, the context is that Gabriel says Mary will (future) conceive

 

[Thekla]

"Rumor." A popularly held but unsubstatiation report or story; to spread such is a sin (according to the Catholic Catechism) and therefore is NOT "loving" (the issue of this thread) no matter how innocently intended.






.






.

by the definition you give, that the NT is authentic is a rumor

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

remember, the context is that Gabriel says Mary will (future) conceive

Future can be one second ahead...
That may well have been the case, certainly the conception was quite soon.

How does the verb "you will conceive" dogmatically substantiate the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

You already admitted that Mary's reply (I AM a virgin) has nothing to do with it.




.

 

[lionroar0]

Future can be one second ahead...
That may well have been the case, certainly the conception was quite soon.

How does the verb "you will conceive" dogmatically substantiate the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

You already admitted that Mary's reply (I AM a virgin) has nothing to do with it.

.

You mean dogmatic substantiation according to CJ. Which hasn't even been defined.

Which amounts nothing more to an opinion.

No points awarded but thanks for playing.

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

remember, the context is that Gabriel says Mary will (future) conceive

LOL yup and she did conceive.. Now had the angel told her Mary in two years you will and Mary replied then I might just bend a little.

 

[Thekla]

LOL yup and she did conceive.. Now had the angel told her Mary in two years you will and Mary replied then I might just bend a little.

I don't understand what this has to do with what we are discussing ...

I think there is a general agreement that Mary did conceive by the Holy Spirit.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Future can be one second ahead...
That may well have been the case, certainly the conception was quite soon.

How does the verb "you will conceive" dogmatically substantiate the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

You already admitted that Mary's reply (I AM a virgin) has nothing to do with it.

You mean dogmatic substantiation according to CJ. Which hasn't even been defined.

Actually, I have. Many times...


I'll accept ANYTHING that you'd accept. If the Denomination's Church Fathers are substantiation (RCC "Fathers," LDS "Fathers," Lutheran "Fathers") then quote some, give the date when they said it. If you have earlier and stronger and a greater number of "Fathers" for this story about Mary than the LDS "Fathers" have regarding stories about Joseph Smith, then you'll have a point.

As stated several times now, I would gladly accept just 5 people (a FAR cry from the claim that "EVERYONE taught this") who lived in the first century and who knew Mary that specifically state that she was a PERPETUAL Virgin. Just 5, that's all. That's some 10 fold fewer "reporters" than the LDS has for stories about Smith but I want to make things a LOT easier for you than you do for others, so just 5. I don't even care if they are relible or credible, they could be horrible heretics if you like, just 5 who knew Mary (or even Joseph!) who wrote in the first century that Mary was a PERPETUAL Virgin. I've placed the "bar" far, far, far lower and much easier than you do for noncatholics, just I'm nice and I want to make this easy. It is, after all, DOGMA - the highest level of certainty, therefore it must be the easiest to substantiate. Dogmatic statements require dogmatic substantiation, which since it is declared this is of the highest certainly should be very easy to do.


But so far, we've gotten nothing. Absolutely nothing. What what has been revealed in this thread is that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to substantiate this amazingly personal and completely moot story about Our Blessed Lady. A few very, very late people who could not have known Mary or anyone who ever did who state the opinion, but it has been agreed that stating an opinion is not substantiating the opinion. My stating that there are 5 billion fuzzy brown creatures on the Moon of Endor is simply stating an opinion, it's not substantiating it. The LDS Church Fathers gave opinions, too, but you reject those as not substantiating, well - I'm just applying the same rubric that you use.


A rumor is a popularly and perhaps long held story or report which is unsubstantiated. The Catholic Catechism states that the streading of such is a SIN and thus UNLOVING. Thus, the singular issue about this entirely moot and amazingly intimate, private, personal aspect of Mary's life is this: Is it substantiated? To the level of dogma? In a way that the RCC accepts from noncatholics? IF so, where is that substantiation? Our LOVE for Our Mother, our respect for her, our desire to not offend and hurt Her requires this substantiation and the Catholic Catechism REQUIRES it or it's a SIN. Do you have it? If so, after all these centuries, it's time to present it. If not, then Houston, we have a problem... the RCC is dogmatically spreading a rumor which it declares is sinful - and it can be raised if it is LOVING to sin against someone (the subject of this thread).


Like you, I love, adore, revere, esteem and in a sense worship Our Blessed Lady. Like you, I regard Her as chief among the saints, Queen of Heaven and Our Mother. BECAUSE we love her (B.E.C.A.U.S.E.), respect matters, truth matters. The RCC (and a couple of other denominations) regards the frequency of sex between Our Lady and her husband to be an issue of highest importance and greatest certainty, they seem absolutely obsessed. Why it matters how often they have sex, I don't know. Why the RCC is soooooooo extremely obsessed (to the level of dogma) about her extremely private, personal, intimate marital relationship is a point entirely lost on everyone (including, it seems, Catholics). But, I care about her feelings, her heart, her pain - and her privacy. I do NOT desire to hurt her, embarrass her or cause her pain - and thus also Her Son. IF this report about her is substantiated in some solid manner, then I will particpate in the spreading of the story but what the Catholics and Orthodox have revealed for centuries is that this is an abiblical, entirely unsubstantiated, very late rumor. And it's of a nature that has an extremely high and great possibility for pain, hurt and embarrassment by Her and Her Son (as well as being entirely, completely, totally moot). Thus, the issue of this thread is right on target: IS THIS LOVING?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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

There was no sarcasm intended and I apologize if you perceived such. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the Church as a whole does not view Mary as an Apostle nor has it proclaimed the perpetual chastity of the twelve Apostles, as was posted. Please correct me if I am mistaken on these matters as I was unaware that these were anything other than a pious opinion held by the poster.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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?

If I am not mistaken, the OP, "Speak lovingly of Mary" is rightly placed in this subforum of Mariology and addresses the need to speak kindly and truthfully of Mary. It is not a thread for discussing things such as the Trinity or the canon of scripture. There are excellent threads for those discussion in other forums if one chooses to engage in those discussions.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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...

Not taking one's family to an apostlic mission is quite a different thing than being celibate, as was previously stated. I do not know about Orthodoxy, but celibacy in the Catholic church is defined as being strictly unmarried. If one defines celibacy as having a family but not taking them on an apostlic mission then one is on a very slippery slope in comparing Mary's family life (or lack thereof) to that of the apostles.

Are you asserting that all who receive the Holy Spirit are Apostles? There were about 120 people in the upper room on Pentecost who received the Holy Spirit and, following Peter's sermon on the same day about 3,000 others received the Holy Spirit. Both scripture and Tradition have stated that Christ appointed only twelve Apostles.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

I am perplexed by your request. Brethren is the plural form of brother. There are two plural forms for brother in the English language. Brothers is the most commonly used and brethren was used in earlier translations of the Bible such as the KJV. Thus, you are asking me to show you were brother is not translated as brother(s) or brethren. The only difference would be where the word is singular versus were it is plural. The Greek does have both singular and plural forms for brother as well as feminine plural and singular words for sister.

An argument from silence is weak, at best. One can argue, as some indeed have, that just because the Bible doesn't state that Mary and Joseph were actually married, means that they were never married.

However, as CJ says, you are entitled to your pious opinion on these matters.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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

Thank you, Thekla, for your excellent response. I understand your reasoning. I believe, however, there is a third possibility here. That is the actual use of the Greek language by the three Gospel writers in question. As is generally known, Mark's command of the Greek language was weak. It is evident that it was a second language for him. It would be the same if I were to write a book in German, which is not my native language. This lack of clear understanding could mean that the intended understanding, as you have noted, was that of kinsman or cousin. However, the context of the passages renders that interpretation to be weak, as I have noted previously because of Christ calling His followers His mother, brothers, and sisters. There is no argument over the translation of mother as being anything other than His biological mother. Nor, do I think there should be an argument over the translation of brothers and sisters as being anything other than that. However, this is my opinion, for what it is worth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

There goes your point... again.

You keep defeating your own argument. As you keep pointing out (correctly), the Greek word in question can EQUALLY mean a blood brother, as well as a cousin. Thus, you are revealing that the text offers ZERO support for the dogma that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.

You have nothing in the Bible to substantiate the frequency of sex between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born, nothing from ANYONE who knew Mary. You have no substantiation at all - for a dogma proclaimed to be of the highest importance and certainty. Nothing.

My guess is and a pretty good one that there was no need to specify because everyone knew Christ had no brother or sisters....

Is a personal guess sufficient documentation for a dogma, in your opinion? If my Mormon friend GUESSES that God has a grandmother, that's substantiation for DOGMA to you and the RCC?

You realize, I'm sure, that there is no dogma of Jesus Had Sibs. The dogma in question is not about sibs, it's about sex. The supremely private, personal, intimate marital relationship between Mary and Joseph after Jesus was born, it's all how about how often she "did it" (or not). It's not about sibs of Jesus, it's about sex by Mary.

Either way Christ entrusted his mother's care to John... thus negating the fact that there were no any other siblings involved.

No. It simply means that Christ entrusted His mother's care to John.


And it's entirely, completely moot to any dogma of any denomination. The issue before us is not some nonexistent Dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs" but rather "Mary Had No Sex." SEX is the issue, not sibs. You must know that it is biologically possible to have a single instance of marital intimacies and not have a child resulting from such specifically mention in the Bible (in fact, to not have a child resulting from such AT ALL - mentioned in Scripture or not). Surely, you know that. But the dogma is that Mary had sex EXACTLY zero times, not once, ever, at all - and this point is of the highest importance and this supposed report is of the highest and greatest certainty.





.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

LOL yup and she did conceive.. Now had the angel told her Mary in two years you will and Mary replied then I might just bend a little.
​

I don't understand what this has to do with what we are discussing ...

I think there is a general agreement that Mary did conceive by the Holy Spirit.

Yes there is. What it has to do with what we are discussing is it's sense of tense.
You expand to perpetuity what is propheticaly relevant to one instance.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Philothei; In a nutshell you got no proof...

Of what? That you have no proof? The only proof you have is proof that the opinion existed, nothing substantial for basing opinion on, only speculation on symboolic meanings of vaguely relevant passages.

I have no plans of disproving the Trinity as I believe the whole "wisdom" of the Chruch Tradition on it...

No one is asking you to.

You have the problem since you have a description of the what we call Trinity, and you are left with no real name or dogma, because you have to get your dogma and the name from our church tradition.

The name or who coined it is incidental to the illustrated facts substantiated at Jesus' baptism. No scriptures give similar substantiation
of PV.

How come you call it the same?

Me? What do I call the same? Same as what?

Where the word Trinity comes from? Point to me that the ECF did not come up with it?

Like I say, it doesn't matter what word is used or who came up with it. A rose by any other name is still a rose. It is what it is & what it is, is literaly & explicitly described in scripture, unlike PV.

If Trinity was a word given by the Fathers then why you would not accept the EV that also came fromt the same source?

"Trinity" is a descriptive word. I accept it because what it describes is clearly seen in scripture, not because it was used by the ECF. PV is not clearly seen in scripture, so I don't accept it from any source.

It beats me .....one is tradition and the other too... You just pick and chose.. I am not discracting I am stating the parallels so others can see your folly... that is all....

The folly is in thinking they are parallel to begin with.
I pick & choose based on scriptural substantiation.

& Even if I do accept an entire canon (Bible) that was supposedly determined by tradition, you cannot assume it is because I accept tradition. It may meet other crieria I have that you aren't aware of or aren't considering.

 

[Thekla]

Yes there is. What it has to do with what we are discussing is it's sense of tense.
You expand to perpetuity what is propheticaly relevant to one instance.

but as I have explained, if the verb is to refer to a limited span of time, a further statement is needed to provide limitation (as in the Pauline passages LLoJ cited). As the limitation is not given, the verb/statement refers to the entire span, not a limited span.

 

[Philothei]

If I am not mistaken, the OP, "Speak lovingly of Mary" is rightly placed in this subforum of Mariology and addresses the need to speak kindly and truthfully of Mary. It is not a thread for discussing things such as the Trinity or the canon of scripture. There are excellent threads for those discussion in other forums if one chooses to engage in those discussions.

The dogma of HT is very similar to the EV as the word is not mentioned in the NT... It was brought up as an example of "modern Churches" who are inconsistent with the HT dogma ... There is nowhere to be found in the Bible... the same as Pv... period. It is a prallel dogma and it shares the same ....No "direct" proof... in theBible... go figure.. My intent was not to discuss the HT. You do not want to deal with it admit it...just do not discard it.

 

[Rick Otto]

but as I have explained, if the verb is to refer to a limited span of time, a further statement is needed to provide limitation (as in the Pauline passages LLoJ cited). As the limitation is not given, the verb/statement refers to the entire span, not a limited span.

What I am saying is that the propheticaly relevant context provides the limitation.