Is there salvation without Mary?

[The Liturgist]

Thank you for the precise and detailed explanation. Do you agree that Jerome would have needed the Septuagint in order to translate the deutercanonical books and that he was reluctant to do so, but eventually did so using the Septuagint for his translation?

No, because the books tended to exist as separate books, hence the name.

However, the Vetus Latina was translated entirely from the Septuagint. The Vetus Latina was the first Latin Bible, dating from when Victor was Bishop of Rome and decided to introduce a vernacular liturgy, as until that time the Roman church had worshipped in Greek, and still does in part (for instance, kyrie eleison, christie eleison, kyrie eleison), which the Vulgate replaced, except in the concept of liturgical phrases, where the classical Latin of the Vetus Latina is more beautiful (compare the Vetus Gloria in exclesis deo with the Vulgate’s vulgar Latin Gloria in altissimus deo).

 

[Abaxvahl]

Curiously, I cannot think of any doctrine of the RCC or the EOC that is based only in the deutercanonical books, other than the doctrine that they are divinely inspired. Perhaps our RCC and EOC friends will kindly enlighten me to the doctrines that solely originate in the deutercanonical books.

This is actually a subject I've been interested in and would have to scour them again, I think there may be a couple but not many, as 99% of the time I will look to them and then when facing a Protestant just make the same argument from the Protocanon. The first thing that comes to mind is that Raphael is a name of a revealed angel (Tobit).

 

[robycop3]

Because they did not call men named Joseph “Joe.” That’s anachronistic.

You don't know; you weren't there.

I'll call someone whatever I choose, within the board's rules.

 

[robycop3]

No, its based on the opinion of the early church regarding the proper interpretation of scripture and the physical evidence and lack thereof.

As I said-OPINION & GUESSWORK.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You don't know; you weren't there.

That reminds me. Jesus decided to give Cephas the nickname of Rock. I can't imagine anyone today other than a certain deceased actor, going by the name of Rock.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, there is much more of a quark of Scripture, in Luke 1, which has been pointed out, where Mary says in the original Greek not “I have not known men” in the past tense, but “I do not know men” in a continuous form of the present tense, indicating avowed virginity, which is a blessed thing according to St. Paul, who teaches us that it is better for women to remain virgins than to be married. Virginity is a special crown.

No mention of any vow. That's imagination. She's saying in effect that she's a virgin.

 

[robycop3]

That reminds me. Jesus decided to give Cephas the nickname of Rock. I can't imagine anyone today other than a certain deceased actor, going by the name of Rock.

How about Dwayne Johnson? And there's several men named Cephas/Cephus in my 'hood.

 

[robycop3]

I am very well versed in history and archaeology, and the incidents you are referring to are not connected, with some being much older and all of them completely unrelated, and some of them being urban legends. Regarding Egyptian burial of sundials, the only deliberately buried items among the egyptians, as opposed to those items found in lower archaeological layers as cities are built up over time, are those items buried as funerary items.

I also know physics, and the accelerational force needed to move the earth from an orbital velocity where the year was 360 days long vs. 365 days long would have to be prograde rather than retrograde; if it was retrograde the year would get longer, since the slower you orbit an object, the closer you get, and furthermore it would have to be immense, for example, a direct hit by a massive meteorite which would exterminate all life on Earth.

And referring to the illustrious St. Hezekiah as “hez and crew” is irreverant, as is referring to St. Joseph as Joe (Saint is just an old English word meaning Holy, hence old English churches named St. Sepulchre, St. Savior’s and so on - the Greeks use the word Hagios or Hagia).

The means God used to bring this on are not within the theme of this thread, but I'll say for now that several(By no means "all") of the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, a Jew, have been proven right. The gravity of another planet passing by could cause such a disruption without causing total destruction of the face of the earth, & would affect the atmosphere as well. (If some force within the earth would suddenlt alter its rotation, the atmosphere wouldn't immediately change its rotation, resulting in massive worldwide winds.)
And yes, some lunar calendars, as well as solar ones, were affected. Thus, several Roman calendars had only 10 months of 35 or 36 days.

Now, why did the Israeli/Jewish calendar have onlt 360 days if the year has always been 365.25 days? And why are the 5 "extra" days called "intercalary" by many Jews?

The change in the year was a sudden event; there's no history of calendars showing a slow advance to the year's present length.

And again, I'll call who I want what I want, within the rules. I don't hold any men in reverence; they all put their pants on one leg at a time, same as I. Feel free to do the same with me.

 

[Not David]

Curiously, I cannot think of any doctrine of the RCC or the EOC that is based only in the deutercanonical books, other than the doctrine that they are divinely inspired. Perhaps our RCC and EOC friends will kindly enlighten me to the doctrines that solely originate in the deutercanonical books.

Is there any doctrine coming from Song of Songs or Esther?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No; both doctrines are false. Your "evidence" is based upon imagination, tall tales, opinion, & guesswork, not FACTS.

Actually, so is yours.

 

[The Liturgist]

As I said-OPINION & GUESSWORK.

Not guesswork - evidence. And the views of the early church are definitive when it comes to correct scriptural interpretation, since they wrote and edited the Bible.

 

[The Liturgist]

You don't know; you weren't there.

I'll call someone whatever I choose, within the board's rules.

Ok, well, I am pretty sure its against the rules to say things along the lines of Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox aren’t Christian, and you did say you considered some of those groups to be non-Christian.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is actually a subject I've been interested in and would have to scour them again, I think there may be a couple but not many, as 99% of the time I will look to them and then when facing a Protestant just make the same argument from the Protocanon. The first thing that comes to mind is that Raphael is a name of a revealed angel (Tobit).

The doctrine of the seven archangels is from Tobit, and their names, for example, St. Uriel, derives from 1 Enoch, which I think we should regard as canonical because St. Jude does quote it in His epistle.

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually, so is yours.

You know, every time you or @ViaCrucis post something, I agree with it. I guess this is because even though I am not at present a member of a Lutheran church, although in my youth I was for a time a member of an LCMS and later a traditional ELCA parish (the one in Solvang, years before that wacky Finnish pastor took over), I am an Evangelical Catholic Congregationalist, which is basically equivalent to being LCMS. I am really just trying to preserve some of the beauty of the Congregational liturgy Devotional Services, by Rev. John Hunter, which is the best entirely new liturgical service book written since The Book of Common Prayer. (With the possible exception of the exquisite older Moravian hymnals, although they are complex and I don’t fully understand how they work, and it looks like at present they are using a boring liturgy not very much different from the other mainline churches + the RCL, also, sadly, the Moravian bishops are extremely liberal; traditional Moravians nickname the hierarchy of the Moravian church the “Moravian Mafia” but have not yet organized a viable confessing movement, and my fear is that the Pietistic element in Moravianism might interfere with such an effort to introduce reforms or a conservative Moravian church that rejects gay marriage, etc).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is there any doctrine coming from Song of Songs or Esther?

Other than peripheral teachings, which some might define as doctrines, there are certainly no dogmas of which I am aware. I suppose that some might derive doctrines related to Mary from the book of Esther and other might derive doctrines concerning marriage from the Song of Songs.

 

[robycop3]

Actually, so is yours.

Newp! Mine has SCRIPTURAL PROOF.

 

[robycop3]

Not guesswork - evidence. And the views of the early church are definitive when it comes to correct scriptural interpretation, since they wrote and edited the Bible.

No; God's chosen penmen, such as Moses & some of the apostles wrote the Bible. Later, men collated those writings & placed them in one book.

 

[revybub]

Mary has ZERO to do with anyone's salvation.

Ditto. Though she was chosen to be the door to bring Jesus into the world in human form. She was still just a human. He is the savior. And son of our Father God.

 

[robycop3]

Ok, well, I am pretty sure its against the rules to say things along the lines of Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox aren’t Christian, and you did say you considered some of those groups to be non-Christian.

There are non-Christians among them, including quasi/pseudo ones.

 

[prodromos]

Why not?

Because if she was betrothed to be married and intending on having children with her future husband, she already knew how she would conceive in her womb, by "knowing" her husband.