Speak lovingly of Mary

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks, bbbbbbb !

in the interest of clarifying this further:
1. I really don't like to speculate too much, as I haven't studied the matter sufficiently to attempt a reasonable comment.
3. perhaps a general statement on verification in general; as we are using the Bible to 'uncover' fact, it would seem only reasonable that we consider the authenticity of the witness (Bible) we use as a source for that fact. In "doing history", sources without such verification may be considered spurious. In this sense, the charge that 'Tradition' is an unverified source should include the Bible as it is tradition that verifies it. To the latter point, I do not mean EO/OO/RC tradition, but the lack of any certain documentation to authenticate the NT -- in this sense, all Christians rely on tradition for verification of the NT texts.
4. Given the term used for evidence, and the clear definition of the term as well as its attested, authenticated meaning and use (of which Philadelphia - Egypt, Asia Minor as ancient cities and the meaning of the word - is one example, and the writings of ancient Greek authors another), it seems a moot point for either side.
5. but again, the EO/OO/RC see the ever-virginity as a Biblical teaching; the difference between us (our -your and mine - respective view on where the teaching is supported) is interpretive. In summary, the teaching (from the EO/OO/RC) perspective is neither non-Biblical nor aBiblical, but fully Biblical.

Thanks Thekla! It is always a pleasure discussing with you.

1. No problem there.

3. I understand your point and agree that a concise definition of verification would be most helpful. I think if CJ were interested in helping out, we might establish, at least, differing definitions, although I doubt we could come to a common agreement.

4. I think it is probably a moot point for either side.

5. I appreciate your willingness to define your belief as being an interpretive understanding of the Bible. I hope that you are also willing to concede that others, such as myself, also have interpretive understandings of the Bible (e.g. the passages mentioning the brothers and sisters of Jesus) which undergird at least the possibility that no dogmatic statement can be made that Mary remained perpetually virgin. The fact, I think, has been established that the Bible makes no explicit statements regarding the marital life (or lack thereof) of Mary and Joseph.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ah, then, by that logic, the position of her having other children is also speculative.
Score!!!

I know that CJ has never been fixated on any dogma that Mary had other children, but just that it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that she never had sex.

I was the one who brought up the passages that mention the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, including naming four of His brothers. Where these brothers and sisters came from (other than babies) has been debated here at some length.

CJ's point, I believe, still stands. Only three of 30,000 (according to RCC reckoning) Christian denominations have any dogma concerning the sex life of Mary. Thus, it is quite irrelevant to discuss a dogma (i.e. Mary having had other children) that none of these churches holds. It is relevant to discuss (and I mean discuss, nor argue) the dogma that three denominations hold, of which one has declared essential to a person's salvation.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks Thekla! It is always a pleasure discussing with you.

1. No problem there.

3. I understand your point and agree that a concise definition of verification would be most helpful. I think if CJ were interested in helping out, we might establish, at least, differing definitions, although I doubt we could come to a common agreement.

4. I think it is probably a moot point for either side.

5. I appreciate your willingness to define your belief as being an interpretive understanding of the Bible. I hope that you are also willing to concede that others, such as myself, also have interpretive understandings of the Bible (e.g. the passages mentioning the brothers and sisters of Jesus) which undergird at least the possibility that no dogmatic statement can be made that Mary remained perpetually virgin. The fact, I think, has been established that the Bible makes no explicit statements regarding the marital life (or lack thereof) of Mary and Joseph.

Thanks, bbbbbbb

I do think we are getting rather closer to a common statement of sorts, although perhaps not what was expected at the outset.

My primary interest here (CF) is to address misunderstandings; in this issue (the ever-virginity or not) both sides can be shown to rely on "a tradition" to support their position.

I do thank you, btw, for your willingness to engage in serious, fair, and respectful discussion on the matter. What a blessing !

Regards,
in Christ !

 

[katholikos]

I know that CJ has never been fixated on any dogma that Mary had other children, but just that it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that she never had sex......

......and it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that she had sex either. So he needs to quite acting like he is sooooo right and we are sooooo wrong.

And I request out of consideration for Catholic sensibilites that we quit referring to the Blessed Virgin with such base language. Please: I am asking respectfully.

 

[Brennin]

......and it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that she had sex either. So he needs to quite acting like he is sooooo right and we are sooooo wrong.

And I request out of consideration for Catholic sensibilites that we quit referring to the Blessed Virgin with such base language. Please: I am asking respectfully.

Jesus' siblings indicate otherwise. If they were really "cousins" then anepsioi would have been used instead of adelphoi.

 

[Thekla]

Jesus' siblings indicate otherwise. If they were really "cousins" then anepsioi would have been used instead of adelphoi.

we've been round on this word again and again

anepsios and sibling are not the only meanings of the word

 

[Brennin]

we've been round on this word again and again

anepsios and sibling are not the only meanings of the word

The other uses of adelphoi do not rescue your peculiar doctrine. Its use in the Septuagint does not help you because it is a translation; the New Testament is not. And Paul's use of it for church members does not help you either.

 

[Thekla]

The language of the LXX is a record of Hebraic concepts translated into Greek.

Attestation of the (Greek) broad definition of adelphos is evidenced in secular Greek writing.

 

[Brennin]

The language of the LXX is a record of Hebraic concepts translated into Greek.

Attestation of the (Greek) broad definition of adelphos is evidenced in secular Greek writing.

Feel free to demonstrate that use within the New Testament apart from the alleged use of adelphoi to refer to Jesus' "cousins."

 

[Thekla]

Feel free to demonstrate that use within the New Testament apart from the alleged use of adelphoi to refer to Jesus' "cousins."

It is frequently used with the sense "brotherly"; although the meaning is typically understood in a spiritual sense, the meaning "brotherly" was already a secular use.

EDIT: and, depending on your "tradition", as the term adelphos is attested in Greek (and Hebrew) use as "kin", I will add that it the NT it means kin (as well as its other meanings, including step-sibling).

 

[bbbbbbb]

......and it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that she had sex either. So he needs to quite acting like he is sooooo right and we are sooooo wrong.

And I request out of consideration for Catholic sensibilites that we quit referring to the Blessed Virgin with such base language. Please: I am asking respectfully.

Please accept my apologies for the language. As I am certain you know, I have avoided it until this point. I see no purpose to unnecessary offence and will attempt to avoid it if at all possible.

I don't think CJ has ever attempted to prove that Mary and Joseph did engage in marital relations. Please correct me if I am wrong about that. I believe his point has been that it is impossible to state with complete certainty anything concerning Mary's marital relations with Joseph at all so that any dogma concerning them is misleading because a dogma is a statement of absolute and positive certainty to be held by the faithful.

I suspect CJ would probably be just as adamantly opposed to any Protestant Church dogmatizing that Mary and Joseph did engage in marital relations.

CJ, if you read this, feel free to provide your input as to the correctness of what I have written.

Thanks.

 

[Thekla]

Although I can only speak for myself (per CJs terminology), I do wonder of the same terminology is routinely applied by him to: Christ, John the Baptist and any whom the Bible portray as chaste. Were that the case, I do think I'd find the terminilogy less troublesome.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=katholikos;......and it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that she had sex either.

An admission which verifies there is insufficient substantiation for dogma SCORE! (lol)

So he needs to quite acting like he is sooooo right and we are sooooo wrong.

That'll happen just as soon as when you quit acting like the dogma is legitimate.(Extra Point!)

And I request out of consideration for Catholic sensibilites that we quit referring to the Blessed Virgin with such base language. Please: I am asking respectfully.

Without malice I tell you Mr. K, that can't be taken seriously when the asserted dogma is a arguably a "base" fixation to begin with.
Perhaps you could choose to pity us rather than take offense.

 

[Brennin]

Mountains of evidence have been given to support Marian doctrines...

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[katholikos]

An admission which verifies there is insufficient substantiation for dogma SCORE!......

...unless you count the Holy Spirit
ULTIMATE SCORE!

Please accept my apologies for the language. As I am certain you know, I have avoided it until this point. I see no purpose to unnecessary offence and will attempt to avoid it if at all possible.....

Bahhh. Apology is uneccessary. And I appreciate your response

 

[katholikos]

You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

LOL. Okay, that was funny. I'll give you that one.

 

[Brennin]

LOL. Okay, that was funny. I'll give you that one.

A Brighter Future

We got to work for a better future
We've got to join hands for tomorrow
Take the first step and you will see
The future begins with you and me

We can start to make a difference
If we want it for our children
Recycle that can and plant that tree
Cuz the future begins with you and me



Incidentally, I do not begrudge you your Catholicism. I just like theological disputes.

 

[WarriorAngel]

both interpretations (per Mary and the above) rely on the uniqueness, the singularity of Christ. Though I wonder where Ezekiel mentions that others will enter, though in a different "manner"; perhaps you could point this out.

I am rather curious as well.
Priests are plural and men.

1. The quote isn't from a denomination, much less yours.

2. The quote doesn't specifically teach the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

3. All literate persons know that the verse you quotes doesn't so much as even MENTION Mary, sex or perpetual anything.

Could you proove to me what Christ taught the Apostles for 40 days before He rose??
No one seems to be able to....and yet it was not written.
WHY?
Well, apparently when Christ said -by faith- He meant by faith.
And so He gave the Apostles all the doctrines - all the understandings of the OT [etc]
And we see pieces of it, but not fully.
I mean even looking at how HUGE the OT is compared to the NT you can tell they certainly didnt elaborate on ALL the foreshadowing of the OT. And this was because of a few reasons - and faith being the major issue. Faith in the Church that Christ deposited.

Look where the Eunich tells Philip he needs help understanding. But again, the NT doesnt elaborate.
This is a consistent message on so many principle pieces that today if you requested the information from the Church - they could tell you without getting out translations, scholars who searched the world, or even archeology.
Because it is the same truths passed downwards without speculations.

So - when the Apostles taught the whole OT they didnt....[follow me here] elaborate nearly any of it.
Did they?

And so many ppl refuse to see that Jesus did as He said He would, and left the deposit of His doctrines and the OT foreshadows to the Apostles who didnt write it all down.
FOR had they written down everything we need to know - many folks wouldnt be scouring the earth to understand the OT...because the Church already undserstands it.

WHY?
Because the Holy Spirit would be & is on duty 24/7 - AND - the Holy Spirit is EITHER going to be trusted to do this - or He isnt.

What it comes down to is faith - just as Jesus said it would be.

The question is - how many can let go of their fear of the Oral Traditions in order to have 100% faith in what Christ set down with His Apostles and kept intact thru the POWER of the Holy Spirit?

If there is ever anything one must ponder - it would be that very issue.
Why did Christ hide so much from the ppl and the Apostles in life?
And why did the Apostles hide so much as is obvious in the absense of these issues in their writings...?

Note: It was stated that this dogma has 'ALWAYS been believed."
I simply asked for the evidence of that, something to substantiate the statement of fact.








I'm a tad lost to know how this reply related to what you quoted...
You rather just seem to be contradicting what you posted above.



1. Ah, so I note you are now contradicting your earlier statement that it has always been taught....

2. Would you please give the quote from around 400 AD form some denomination that specifically states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin?

3. How does this going back to 400 AD (if it does) dogmatically substantiate that it is dogmatically true? You must know that there are a number of teachings you regard as heresy (Gnosticism, Arianism, etc.) that are much older. How then does old = dogmatic substantiation?






Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Its always been believed.
Its only post 17-1800 AD that folks have trouble with it.

The other uses of adelphoi do not rescue your peculiar doctrine. Its use in the Septuagint does not help you because it is a translation; the New Testament is not. And Paul's use of it for church members does not help you either.

Christ called His kin and friends His brothers and sisters. Therefore the writers [of the gospels] imitated His relationship by writing them as such.

Peculiar thing is, how come if Jesus had sisters - why names were never given?


If you walked down the road and met up with a fellow congregation member would you address them as 'brother in Christ' if not at least in your heart??

This expression is ancient old because ALL those who follow Christ are brothers and sisters thru His adoption.


And aside from that - if He called them brothers [and sisters] then the exact term brothers and sisters would have been used.

When i call fellow Christians my brother or sister, i am not going to write 'cousin' in Christ even if we are related or not.

Suffice to say - the actions of Christ completely deny He had siblings.

If He had actual siblings [brothers and sisters] then where were they when 'Mary His [and their] Mother' suffered at the foot of the cross of her Son?

Where were they when Christ gave over the charge of Mary His Mother to John?

Where were they when He was in the Temple?

Where were they when He rose again?

Where were they when the 'Family' gathers together to oil and spice the body at death [hence the women were going to do] on Sunday morning when He rose?

Where are His siblings thru out the majority of the Gospels?

Simply put - they were His friends and cousins....not actual blood brothers and sisters.

 

[katholikos]

If I put a pic that big of the pope in my signature will I get a staff notice?

 

[Photini]

Where were they when Christ gave over the charge of Mary His Mother to John?

What Christ did here is beautiful to me. As Jerome puts it:

...the Virgin Mother was entrusted by the Virgin Lord to the Virgin disciple.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html