Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

that, my dear friend, is reaching.

I don't understand what you mean to say :
could you describe how "that" is reaching, and what "that" is ?

 

[Uphill Battle]

You accept the gospel of Luke do you? or you do not since it was written in Greek by a Greek speaking man.... so what is your point? disputing the gospel now? or the translation into Greek was lame? That would mean that Gospel and the Acts are not valid as true documents.... Do you realize what you imply? Let us toss out the Acts too... as invalid ...Nice going UB

I have NO idea how you got this out of what I said.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't understand what you mean to say :
could you describe how "that" is reaching, and what "that" is ?

simply this. You state that the Hebraic culture would influence the authorship of a Greek speaking, greek born, greek author.

that presumes that you know what Luke was thinking when he wrote what he wrote.

that is all I mean by "reaching" as it's pure conjecture.

 

[Thekla]

simply this. You state that the Hebraic culture would influence the authorship of a Greek speaking, greek born, greek author.

that presumes that you know what Luke was thinking when he wrote what he wrote.

that is all I mean by "reaching" as it's pure conjecture.

I see; this is attested by Biblical scholars. It is not unlike the difference between British English and US English; the same language, but each with a "shifted" but overlapping terminology and vernacular.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.





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.



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.





.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I see; this is attested by Biblical scholars. It is not unlike the difference between British English and US English; the same language, but each with a "shifted" but overlapping terminology and vernacular.

many things are attested by Biblical scholars.

for example, some biblical scholars attest to the fact that Jesus had blood siblings. You don't believe that, do you? didn't think so.

and aramaic compared to Greek is a FAR cry from overlapping of British and US English. that is a poor comparison.

 

[Philothei]

UB the whole premise about the Hebrew versus the Greek is in vain...We accept the Bible as is or not? Luke was a hellenized Jew...not a born Greek so he knew both... cultures there goes your argument and in fact it is a non-argument at all...to start up with...since accepting Luke's Greek used in the bible is not even a point to be disputed...or is it?

 

[Rick Otto]

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.





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.



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.





.

I think what is happening is a confusion of ideas. What is expressed as a spiritual condition is often by force of mental habit, translated to a physical condition. Same thing happening with the idea of a pope.

 

[Uphill Battle]

UB the whole premise about the Hebrew versus the Greek is in vain...We accept the Bible as is or not? Luke was a hellenized Jew...not a born Greek so he knew both... cultures there goes your argument and in fact it is a non-argument at all...to start up with...since accepting Luke's Greek used in the bible is not even a point to be disputed...or is it?

The composition of the writings, as well as the range of vocabulary used, indicate that the author was an educated man. The quote in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians differentiating between Luke and other colleagues "of the circumcision" has caused many to speculate that this indicates Luke was a Gentile.

where do you get with certainty that he was a hellenized Jew, as opposed to a Gentile?

either way, it doesn't matter. It would be ill fitting for a Greek educated man to NOT use the proper words for what he intends. the "well, he'd use the aramaic culture" is a weak stand, supportable only in the fact that it COULD be true. anything COULD be true, until evidence to the contrary dissolves it as false.

and yes, I accept the bible as it is. in mine, it says brothers and sisters. Why do YOU not accept it as it is?

fact is, there isn't any (note the capitalized word) SUPPORTED assertion as to why the greek word for Brother would be used. There is conjecture, and nothing else.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE]quote=Philothei;There is no mentions of "manifestation...": either...nor that it is called Holy Trnity either... [/quote]
There presence is duly noted regardles off the lack of words that transliterate to "Trinity" or "manifestation".

The tense is there and the clarity is knowing how to read it... If you fail to understand it...it is not the author's problem who is Luke and Luke knew perfect Greek...

The context is there and clarity is in not ignoring it.

Yes, but no reference to word Trinity as far...

Yet each member of it are explicitly, literaly present.

Your opinion...The facts are speaking for themselves...you just been circular again

My opinion substantiated by explicit, literal facts I've circled back to.
Nonesuch exist for PV. It isn't in the Nicene Creed either.

 

[Philothei]

In "your translation" of the Bible does say "brother" and "I am a virgin" and in Greek both mean something else or something more.. so how that proves your "translation" is right? It is not, as the brother means also cousin, nephew, brethren etc. and also I am like in the famous "I AM the way" "I am the Truth" in Christ the verb is also in simple present.... thus no proof.....Christ is not the truth for one second and then ceases to be.... thus what you say does not stand... There is no "My bible" you got it in Greek from Luke... period.

Also Luke was a "covert" to Judaism prior to his conversion to Christianity....At best it is established he was practicing Judaism and he grew in Antioch a heavily hellenized Jewish city.



here:

INTRODUCTION The writer of this Gospel is universally allowed to have been Lucas (an abbreviated form of Lucanus, as Silas of Silvanus), though he is not expressly named either in the Gospel or in the Acts. From Col 4:14 we learn that he was a "physician"; and by comparing that verse with Col 4:10, 11-in which the apostle enumerates all those of the circumcision who were then with him, but does not mention Luke, though he immediately afterwards sends a salutation from him-we gather that Luke was not a born Jew. Some have thought he was a freed-man (libertinus), as the Romans devolved the healing art on persons of this class and on their slaves, as an occupation beneath themselves. His intimate acquaintance with Jewish customs, and his facility in Hebraic Greek, seem to show that he was an early convert to the Jewish faith; and this is curiously confirmed by Ac 21:27-29, where we find the Jews enraged at Paul's supposed introduction of Greeks into the temple, because they had seen "Trophimus the Ephesian" with him; and as we know that Luke was with Paul on that occasion, it would seem that they had taken him for a Jew, as they made no mention of him. On the other hand, his fluency in classical Greek confirms his Gentile origin. The time when he joined Paul's company is clearly indicated in the Acts by his changing (at Ac 16:10) from the third person singular ("he") to the first person plural ("we"). From that time he hardly ever left the apostle till near the period of his martyrdom (2Ti 4:11). Eusebius makes him a native of Antioch. If so, he would have every advantage for cultivating the literature of Greece and such medical knowledge as was then possessed. That he died a natural death is generally agreed among the ancients; Gregory Nazianzen alone affirming that he died a martyr.

.

http://bible.cc/luke/1-1.htm


I guess that gave us an opportunity to dig further into Luke Thanks UB... Still though does not prove a thing....

 

[Kristos]

1) Ezekiel 44:22 - certainly existed in the 1st century
2) Divine Liturgy of St James the Brother of the Lord. ca 60AD

Thou who art the only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal; who didst submit for our
salvation to become flesh of the holy God-mother, and ever-virgin Mary;

note: holy God-mother was added after the council of Chalcedon.
3) St Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians - already cited. Also repeated in his epistle to the Philippians & his epistle to St John the apostle:

"But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity"​

4) Iraneus, Against Heresies, bookIII

so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and
being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself
and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man,
the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the
back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put
asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen;​

3750 so that the​

former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty.
5) Gospel of the Nativity of Mary

The blessed and glorious ever-virgin Mary, sprung from the royal stock and family of David,
born in the city of Nazareth, was brought up at Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord. Her father was​

named Joachim, and her mother Anna
6) Protoevangelium of James - Ch 9v3, Ch 13 v3, ch 15 & ch 20
7) The history of Joseph the Carpenter. Early Coptic. This is after Joseph has died, and mary is still called virgin

Now his body was lying prostrate and bloodless; wherefore I reached forth my hand, and​

put right his eyes and shut his mouth, and said to the virgin Mary:
8) The book of John concerning the falling asleep of Mary. Pre-4th Century
As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary,
9) The Passing of Mary:

Verily, He that was brought forth by thee is the true God, O​

mother of God, ever-virgin Mary.


On the above (5-9) Philip Schaff:

While these documents are of considerable interest and value, as giving evidence of a widespread
feeling in early times of the importance of the events which form the basis of our belief, and as
affording us curious glimpses of the state of the Christian conscience, and of modes of Christian​

thought, in the first centuries of our era.

 

[Kristos]

My goodness, what a low view of prophecy you hold! I expected much better from you. The New Testament references to Old Testament prophecies are typically very direct. Thus it was that when the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah 53 he readily accepted Philip's message of the gospel.

As you are well aware, there are multitudes of fanciful interpretations of scripture. We should not accept any unless they are given interpretation by scripture itself. Sadly, the alleged prophecies that you have cited fall into this category. They are no more valid than believing, as some have done, that Napoleon Bounaparte was the AntiChrist, based on similarities between certain prophetic scriptures and his biography.

FYI, this teaching concerning Ezekiel dates at least from St Jerome, 4th century.

She is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel,​

always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies; and through her “the Sun of Righteousness,” our “high priest after the order of Melchizedek,” goes in and out.​

 

[Philothei]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Thanks Kristos Bro for finding those early doc...

I should have known that the Liturgy of St. James...

 

[Uphill Battle]

In "your translation" of the Bible does say "brother" and "I am a virgin" and in Greek both mean something else or something more.. so how that proves your "translation" is right?

it doesn't. It proves the possibility. Something your church, and the RCC will not fathom. they state either with certainty, or dogmatically, that it cannot mean something other than Perpetual virginity.

It is not, as the brother means also cousin, nephew, brethren etc. and also I am like in the famous "I AM the way" "I am the Truth" in Christ the verb is also in simple present.... thus no proof.....Christ is not the truth for one second and then ceases to be.... thus what you say does not stand... There is no "My bible" you got it in Greek from Luke... period.

ok... yes, that may be the case. But, as we know, Greek DOES have a word for cousin. Now, if you are going to assert that it CANNOT mean brother as the assertion of the PV stands(despite the prevalent use of the Greek word Brother for brothers) then you have to explain why, and have solid reason for it. the "it may be, so it is" is poor arguementation.

Also Luke was a "covert" to Judaism prior to his conversion to Christianity....At best it is established he was practicing Judaism and he grew in Antioch a heavily hellenized Jewish city.

which proves what in regards to his knowledge and use of the greek language?

here:


.

http://bible.cc/luke/1-1.htm


I guess that gave us an opportunity to dig further into Luke Thanks UB... Still though does not prove a thing....

I've grown comfortable with the fact that it never will. When you pit reasoning apart from an established "must believe" you will never convince the "must believe" that there is any possibility that they have been misinformed.

 

[Thekla]

Uphill Battle,

ok... yes, that may be the case. But, as we know, Greek DOES have a word for cousin. Now, if you are going to assert that it CANNOT mean brother as the assertion of the PV stands(despite the prevalent use of the Greek word Brother for brothers) then you have to explain why, and have solid reason for it. the "it may be, so it is" is poor arguementation.

Yes, the term for cousin does exist, and is used once, and the meaning is contained within the broader term "adelphos". But we understand adelphos also within the context of Mary's statement in Luke. If Luke is not in error, and Mary was not lying, the referent adelphos cannot mean "born of Mary". The further understanding (Christological, Prophetic, and oral "Traditioning") supports that Mary did not lie, and Luke/the Bible is not in error.

 

[Thekla]

many things are attested by Biblical scholars.

for example, some biblical scholars attest to the fact that Jesus had blood siblings. You don't believe that, do you? didn't think so.

and aramaic compared to Greek is a FAR cry from overlapping of British and US English. that is a poor comparison.

The Biblical scholarship on this matter is linguistic (and a separate category of study), NOT didactic.

I am not comparing Aramaic and Greek; I am comparing Semiticised Greek and Greek.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Biblical scholarship on this matter is linguistic (and a separate category of study), NOT didactic.

I am not comparing Aramaic and Greek; I am comparing Semiticised Greek and Greek.

The NT was penned in GREEK.
There is a GREEK word for cousin, it's NOT the one used.
The Greek word for "brother" MAY (although not commonly) be used figuratively, not literally.
None of that provides an OUNCE of substantiation for the DOMGA that Mary had no sex.
AT BEST, your argument is that it is unlikely but theoretically POSSIBLE that the Bible does not specificly teach that the brothers named in the Bible are literal blood brothers.
It has NOTHING to do with whether He had brothers.
And it has NOTHING to do with whether Mary had sex.

There is no dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs."
There is a dogma in 3 denominations of "Mary Had No Sex EVER."
In stead of revealing how weak your hand is regarding "Jesus Had No Sibs," let's see if you have dogmatic substantiation for the actual issue: Can you show that Mary Had No Sex EVER?
Because if it's not substantiated as true, it's not loving to spread the rumor.




.

 

[Thekla]

Uphill Battle,

I forgot also to add: Christ's witness from the cross, in giving Mary to the care of someone NOT her son. Unless she was an adultress, this would be false witness.

 

[jckstraw72]

There is no dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs."

you love to repeat that and yet it is very misleading. i guarantee you 100% that i could not find a single person in my parent's non-denom Church that would refer to Mary as ever-virgin. ok, so they never dogmatically proclaimed it, but since they 100% believe it, the dogma doesnt need to be pronounced. it would only be pronounced if there was some opposition. it is most certainly THE belief of many churches.