Mary - Christian Prototype

[AnticipateHisComing]

Indeed so.

Well, it is wrong. See how edifying that is?

 

[Philip_B]

If you can recognize as the creed states, conception is a different act than the birth, than you can't dictate that two different acts are equal or both spiritual. Therefore the statement that the birth was a spiritual act is an unsupported proclamation.

What a peculiar argument. By extension you would need to reduce humanity to biology alone to stand by this statement. In Australia we would say that it fails the Pub test.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

How is this in any sense legalism?

Nowhere does the Bible say that personhood and humanity are synonymous.

The Latin word personam, from the Greek πρόσωπον has the sense of meaning "visage", face," "countenance," "mask" or "personality."

In the Greek Septuagint, God is explicitly described as having a πρόσωπον, in the Priestly Blessing found in the 6th chapter of Numbers.

Thus, God the Father is a Person according to the Holy Bible (particularly since the Hebrew word translated as πρόσωπον has essentially the same meaning).

Is this thread in English or Greek or Latin? Does every word in a translation map to one unique word in another language? The most common use of person is to reference a human. As person is defined according to the internet search.

per·son
ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person
1.a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, child, human, being, (living) soul, mortal, creature; More
used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual.
"the entrance fee is $10.00 per person"
an individual characterized by a preference or liking for a specified thing.
"she's not a cat person"
an individual's body.
"I have publicity photographs on my person at all times"
a character in a play or story.
"his previous roles in the person of a fallible cop"
2.GRAMMAR
a category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker first person, the addressee second person, or a third party third person.
3.CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, who together constitute the Trinity.
Origin

Middle English: from Old French persone, from Latin persona ‘actor's mask, character in a play,’ later ‘human being.’​

In like manner, several verses describe the faces or countenances of Angels. Using πρόσωπον in the LXX.

Anything with a rational visage is a person.

Whereas not all persons are human beings. Most I believe are spiritual beings (there is some reason to suspect that angels and fallen angels substantially outnumber humans).

So you think a monkey that has a face and appears as a person, is a person? Do you also believe in evolution? If one can't imagine monkeys in the same order as humans, than I can't imagine God and men in the same order. As names carry weight, I will never say God is a person, even though he is 3 "persons" in one. Despite the origin of the word person and some older Greek word having a wider meaning, today person does not carry as broad of a meaning as you promote.

Lastly you argue this to avoid the main point of my initial post that men are above angels.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

What a peculiar argument. By extension you would need to reduce humanity to biology alone to stand by this statement.

If you studied biology, you would realize how conception is the start of life. Birth is just the movement of life from one environment to another. This is why most Christians are against abortion.

Further if you recognize that conception also entails the creation of an eternal soul that can be filled with either God's Spirit or Satan's, than it is even more miraculous than birth.

Scientist of late are actually thinking of creating an artificial womb. While scientist may dream of creating life, none think we can create an artificial human from the raw elements of sperm and a female egg.

In Australia we would say that it fails the Pub test.

I am always weary of bear arguments. The argument of one that spent too much time with beer in a pub should not be used outside of the pub, because it only make sense in the pub.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

@AnticipateHisComing

The following is an informal rule reminder only, since in our discussion of personhood we are approaching the boundaries of Nicene Christian theology.

The word person used to describe the members of the Holy Trinity is not an analogy; there are literally three persons in one God; to suggest otherwise is to reject the Niceno-Constantinoplitan Creed of 381, which is the Statement of Faith for Christianforums.com; non-Nicene Christians strictly speaking may not post in General Theology; in practice, we generally let them post as long as they do not teach against the Statement of Faith; I am pretty sure that claiming God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are not actually literal persons would be interpreted by my peers as an SOP violation. So I just want to give you a heads up on that. On the other hand, there is no rule precluding you from arguing angels are not persons).

If you want to argue the three persons of the Trinity are not literal persons, you should create a thread in Controversial Christian Theology.

If by the way you did not mean to deny their literal personhood, my apologies. I just want to keep us on topic and make sure we stay out of trouble and enjoy a friendly debate within the rules of GT.

This is not a formal Mod Hat, just an informal recommendation, as I am enjoying debating with you immensely and would not want this thread to get locked, or see anyone get in trouble, for an SOP vio for non-Nicene Teaching in General Theology.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Now, to resume our debate:

Is this thread in English or Greek or Latin?

The New Testament was originally composed in Greek, and to properly understand the concept of Personhood, or indeed, many orher concepts expressed in the Scriptural text, we must go back to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and understand how these words were used andninterpreted in ancient times.

The modern definition of "person" as a human being, wherein all men are persons, was unheard of in the first century; the Evangelists knew not this concept.

In that era, not every human was legally considered to "have a person." For example, in Roman courts, slaves were habeas non personam.

The idea of personhood as expressed in the Bible is intimately connected with face, and with interconnectedness, you are not a person and I am not a person if we cannot look into each other's eyes (or feel each other's faces, if we are blind).

Angels, having faces, are persons. God, although spiritual, also has three persons, as the Creeds and Scripture itself clearly express.

There are several other cases where we have to go back to the Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew in order to get a proper sense of what the Bible is telling us. For example, the word for Sin in Greek, Hamartia, literally means, to Miss the Mark.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Greek Word for Word is Logos, which corresponds with the Hebraic Memra. The idea of the Logos as a divine person subordinate to a higher God was common in Hellenic philosophy (in Plato, Philo and others), and thus St. John goes to great pains in the Gospel of God to stress the coequality of Christ the Incarnate Logos with God the Father, the two being equal in all respects except by order of generation or patrimony and in the sense that our Lord's assumed humanity is created and united hypostatically with the uncreated.

The word Logos means more than Word, it means reason, idea, and many other things. It is a conceptually rich word, like so much of the Greek language: the English translation really doesn't do it justice.

The Koine Greek of the New Testament and the Septuagint Old Testament is such a rich and expressive language, much more expressive than English. It is also possible to use and understand Greek words while using English syntax, and obtain most of the meaning that way. Koine Greek is sufficiently nuanced, I believe, as to be able to encapsulate the ideas expressed by our Lord in Gallilean Aramaic, and the nuances of OT Hebrew and Aramaic, without a material loss of meaning ( @SteveCaruso might disagree with me on this point).

I am of the view that all Christians seriously interested in Bible study ought to acquire a working knowledge of the Koine Greek vocabulary used in the NT and LXX. I consider this more important than acquiring a Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary, although learning that certainly does not hurt (also, a knowledge of Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Church Slavonic, Ge'ez and Classical Armenian and Georgian, as well as, for reference purposes, the German language, is highly desirable for advanced scholars, as some interesting and relevant Patristic, apocryphal and deuterocanonical texts are preserved only in those ancient languages, and much of the best scholarship is written in German and has not yet been translated).

So in answer to your question, I consider this thread to be largely focused on sacred scripture written in Greek, and ideas about it expressed by fathers of the early Church writing mainly in Greek, Syriac and Latin. Any thread where we invoke the New Testament and find ourselves dealing with disputed readings is going to wind up involving the Greek language to an extreme extent, for obvious reasons.

I also believe English Bibles go too far in attempting to translate Greek vocabulary into English. In the case of words like prosopon, hamartia, eucharistos, menou and Logos, it would be better to use the original Greek words and teach people the meaning of them, versus resorting to inadequete and misleading English substitutes.

A further problem of semantics arises owing to the change in meaning and cultural context between the publication of the KJV, Douay Rheims and other traditional language Bibles and the present. For example, when Jesus refers to St. Mary as "Woman," it can come across to modern readers like an insult, and more modern translations have too frequently left that unchanged. A better translation would be "Madame."

Of course, this does take us into the realm of dynamic equivalence, which can open a can of worms in terms of increasing the risk of doctrinal bias versus traditional word for word translations. However, there already is doctrinal bias in the most popular translations (the KJV is biased in favor of 16th century Middle Church Anglicanism, as a via media between the High Church Bishop's Bible and the Low Church / Calvinist Geneva Bible, the Douay Rheims reflects the doctrinal views of Catholicsm at least in its footnotes, although the English text appears fairly close to the Vulgate, and of the early Church Fathere, St. Jerome in my opinion had the most in common with the Protestant Reformers, which is probably why they continued using the Vulgate extensively in theological discourse into the 18th century; the NIV, especially in its latest revision, reflects the biases of liberal theology and feminist theology).

This is to a certain degree acceptable, because, as St. Hilary of Poitiers tells us, the scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading. However, it does underscore the importance of not being over-reliant on a single translation, and of acquainting oneself as much as possible with the Greek vocabulary of the NT, even learning Koine Greek if one can (it is quite hard). One should also acquire a knowledge of textual criticism and understand the differences between the Textus Receptus, the Minority Text, and the possible implications thereof.

This is a very complex field.

I am however confident of one thing: Jesus did not say "On the Contrary," as Bob Ryan and a minority of recent translations argue, or "No, Rather," as the JWs would have us believe, but said something closer to "Truly Indeed."

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So you think a monkey that has a face and appears as a person, is a person?

No; if we study the meaning of prosopon, it becomes clear that the word is much subtler than "face." One only has a prosopon if one person can behold another person. In other words, I am only a person because I can look into your eyes and relate to you as a person, and vice versa.

Monkeys are irrational beasts; they have faces, but not prosopa. For when they behold a human face, they see only another animal; they are incapable of relating to humans rationally, but are driven only by instinct and primitive lower thought processes.

Do you also believe in evolution?

Yes, because it has been shown to exist in nature. However I am not convinced humans are evolved from monkeys; humans could well have been specially created in a manner similiar to more advanced apes like homo erectus, which have since become extinct.

I believe Genesis 1 does depict the Big Bang and the animal kingdom evolving from primitive to more advanced life (notice how land mammals appear last, just like in Evolution), but I do not believe evolution rules out humans being specially created separately from this natural process, at a moment ordained by God. However, I do believe, because science suggests it to be true, that human beings do evolve and have evolved since Adam and Eve.

I also do not feel my faith is threatened by the idea that Adam and Eve were descended from monkeys, or are even allegorical; the possibility exists that Genesis 2-3 is an allegory explaining how humans shut ourselves from Paradise by succumbing to sinful passions at the prodding of the devil. However, I consider a literal interpretation to also be of great benefit.

Ultimately, the take away from Genesis is that God created the universe, God created life, God created man, God did not create evil; evil is the failure of man and of some of the angels to resist sinful desires, and as such is a destructive force that leads to death. Thus, we are dependent on the mercy of Christ, who became incarnate as the New Adam, through the supreme obedience and piety of St. Mary, the New Eve, who obeyed God where eve disobeyed.

Cain, the firstborn of Eve, was a murderer, who famously asked "am I my brother's keeper?"

Jesus, the only-begotten of St. Mary (who remained a virgin after His birth; his brethren such as St. James the Just were half-brothers by Joseph's previous marriage and cousins; remember Jews tended to use word Brother to refer to male relatives), killed no one; he sacrificed Himself to redeem and glorify mankind and said "whatever you do to the least of them, you do to me."

If one can't imagine monkeys in the same order as humans, than I can't imagine God and men in the same order.

Monkeys are irrational neasts and as such have no prosopon, even if they have a vaguely anthropomorphic face.

Angels are persons, because they have a countenance, a rational personality; we can look at them and they can look at us. Rationality is a prerequisite for personhood.

As names carry weight, I will never say God is a person, even though he is 3 "persons" in one. Despite the origin of the word person and some older Greek word having a wider meaning, today person does not carry as broad of a meaning as you promote.

Here we have to be very careful to avoid violating the SOP of general theology.

Let me clarify what the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed say: there is one God, in three persons, prosopa.

However, the Nicene Creed also makes it cleae that God became a person in the sense you appear to be using the term, that is, as a human. God literally became a human being in the Incarnation. Jesus unites in His incarnation the divine and human natures without change, confusion or separation.

Thus, it is entirely correct and in accord with the Nicene Creed to call God a human being and a spirit, at the same time. It is entirely correct to call St. Mary the Mother of God. It is entirely correct to say that God was crucified, died and resurrected.

Lastly you argue this to avoid the main point of my initial post that men are above angels.

That is not true. I readily agree that men are created above the angels. The Angels are not allowed to behold the face of God, whereas human beings are.

However, angels are spiritual persons. In virtue of their rank, they are inferior to humans; in virtue of their power, they are superior, being purely spiritual and unbound by the constraints of our material bodies.

In the Orthodox Church, we believe that if one is walking down the road and encounters an angel and a priest, one should greet the priest first, because the priest is allowed to behold the very body and blood of our Lord, from which the angels must avert their eyes.

In rural Romania or Moldova, there was a very holy country priest who was assisted by an angel in performing the Proskomide, the Liturgy of Preparation, before the Divine Liturgy, which is a most solemn and glorious part of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist, in which the Lamb (the Eucharistic loaf) is sliced with the liturgical spear, and portions are set aside to commemorate the Mother of God and certain other saints, and other portions are set aside and consecrated as intercessions for various living or deceased persons in need of prayer. This priest would spend hours and hours in the Proskomide, so as to intercede for as many living and departed as possible.

This father was one day visited by the bishop, who noticed that he was arranging the pieces of the Eucharist on the diskos or paten backwards from the normal pattern. When the bishop asled why, the simple priest answered that the angel who assisted him had never told him any other way.

It was then known to the Bishop and his fellow priests that this simple country hieromonk was a very holy man of God, to ne helped by an angel. An angel, owing to their inferior rank, would not dare correct a priest over a minor liturgical error.

Now, that said, virtuous angels like St. Gabriel cannot act in a manner that would induce humans to sin or that would set a bad example; therefore we must regard St. Gabriel's veneration of the Theotokos as an exemplary act.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Indeed, the first person in the Bible to venerate her is St. Gabriel the Archangel.

Firstly, Gabriel is an angel, not a person and I am of the opinion that angels serve men.

Angels are persons. Of this there can be no scriptural doubt.

They are not humans, but they are persons.

More legalism to avoid the point of the argument, that men are above angels. This you argue not. Instead you wish to argue the definition of person

How is this in any sense legalism?

The New Testament was originally composed in Greek, and to properly understand the concept of Personhood, or indeed, many orher concepts expressed in the Scriptural text, we must go back to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and understand how these words were used andninterpreted in ancient times.

The modern definition of "person" as a human being, wherein all men are persons, was unheard of in the first century; the Evangelists knew not this concept.

In that era, not every human was legally considered to "have a person." For example, in Roman courts, slaves were habeas non personam.

The idea of personhood as expressed in the Bible is intimately connected with face, and with interconnectedness, you are not a person and I am not a person if we cannot look into each other's eyes (or feel each other's faces, if we are blind).

Angels, having faces, are persons. God, although spiritual, also has three persons, as the Creeds and Scripture itself clearly express.

There are several other cases where we have to go back to the Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew in order to get a proper sense of what the Bible is telling us. For example, the word for Sin in Greek, Hamartia, literally means, to Miss the Mark.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Greek Word for Word is Logos, which corresponds with the Hebraic Memra. The idea of the Logos as a divine person subordinate to a higher God was common in Hellenic philosophy (in Plato, Philo and others), and thus St. John goes to great pains in the Gospel of God to stress the coequality of Christ the Incarnate Logos with God the Father, the two being equal in all respects except by order of generation or patrimony and in the sense that our Lord's assumed humanity is created and united hypostatically with the uncreated.

The word Logos means more than Word, it means reason, idea, and many other things. It is a conceptually rich word, like so much of the Greek language: the English translation really doesn't do it justice.

The Koine Greek of the New Testament and the Septuagint Old Testament is such a rich and expressive language, much more expressive than English. It is also possible to use and understand Greek words while using English syntax, and obtain most of the meaning that way. Koine Greek is sufficiently nuanced, I believe, as to be able to encapsulate the ideas expressed by our Lord in Gallilean Aramaic, and the nuances of OT Hebrew and Aramaic, without a material loss of meaning ( @SteveCaruso might disagree with me on this point).

I am of the view that all Christians seriously interested in Bible study ought to acquire a working knowledge of the Koine Greek vocabulary used in the NT and LXX. I consider this more important than acquiring a Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary, although learning that certainly does not hurt (also, a knowledge of Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Church Slavonic, Ge'ez and Classical Armenian and Georgian, as well as, for reference purposes, the German language, is highly desirable for advanced scholars, as some interesting and relevant Patristic, apocryphal and deuterocanonical texts are preserved only in those ancient languages, and much of the best scholarship is written in German and has not yet been translated).

So in answer to your question, I consider this thread to be largely focused on sacred scripture written in Greek, and ideas about it expressed by fathers of the early Church writing mainly in Greek, Syriac and Latin. Any thread where we invoke the New Testament and find ourselves dealing with disputed readings is going to wind up involving the Greek language to an extreme extent, for obvious reasons.

I also believe English Bibles go too far in attempting to translate Greek vocabulary into English. In the case of words like prosopon, hamartia, eucharistos, menou and Logos, it would be better to use the original Greek words and teach people the meaning of them, versus resorting to inadequete and misleading English substitutes.

A further problem of semantics arises owing to the change in meaning and cultural context between the publication of the KJV, Douay Rheims and other traditional language Bibles and the present. For example, when Jesus refers to St. Mary as "Woman," it can come across to modern readers like an insult, and more modern translations have too frequently left that unchanged. A better translation would be "Madame."

Of course, this does take us into the realm of dynamic equivalence, which can open a can of worms in terms of increasing the risk of doctrinal bias versus traditional word for word translations. However, there already is doctrinal bias in the most popular translations (the KJV is biased in favor of 16th century Middle Church Anglicanism, as a via media between the High Church Bishop's Bible and the Low Church / Calvinist Geneva Bible, the Douay Rheims reflects the doctrinal views of Catholicsm at least in its footnotes, although the English text appears fairly close to the Vulgate, and of the early Church Fathere, St. Jerome in my opinion had the most in common with the Protestant Reformers, which is probably why they continued using the Vulgate extensively in theological discourse into the 18th century; the NIV, especially in its latest revision, reflects the biases of liberal theology and feminist theology).

This is to a certain degree acceptable, because, as St. Hilary of Poitiers tells us, the scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading. However, it does underscore the importance of not being over-reliant on a single translation, and of acquainting oneself as much as possible with the Greek vocabulary of the NT, even learning Koine Greek if one can (it is quite hard). One should also acquire a knowledge of textual criticism and understand the differences between the Textus Receptus, the Minority Text, and the possible implications thereof.

This is a very complex field.

I am however confident of one thing: Jesus did not say "On the Contrary," as Bob Ryan and a minority of recent translations argue, or "No, Rather," as the JWs would have us believe, but said something closer to "Truly Indeed."

Is this thread in English or Greek or Latin?

No, you are correct, your posts have not used legalism in repeated arguments over OLD meanings of person to avoid the point of my post that angels and men are of different positions/classes. Take a look at the original statement that you tirelessly argue over, I think you have forgotten what it was; "Indeed, the first person in the Bible to venerate her is St. Gabriel the Archangel."

Now as I called attention to, we are discussing here in English. The statement you made was NOT a quote of scripture that needed to be translated into English. You just made a statement that the angel Gabriel was a person. I argued to make distinction between men and angels by saying an angel is not a person, even while you acknowledge that the modern definition of person is different than what word might have been used 2000 years ago.

The modern definition of "person" as a human being, wherein all men are persons, was unheard of in the first century;

We are living in the 21st century. We on this board communicate in English. I think you read too much Greek and have lost the ability to communicate in English as English is used in the modern world.

I also believe English Bibles go too far in attempting to translate Greek vocabulary into English. In the case of words like prosopon, hamartia, eucharistos, menou and Logos, it would be better to use the original Greek words and teach people the meaning of them, versus resorting to inadequete and misleading English substitutes.

The purpose of translating scripture into native languages is to make the study of God's word easier for the masses. If you think the ability of translations to be insufficient than you should understand that Jesus' words are not recorded in the original language spoken. You have no pure argument that translations are incapable of expressing what God wants us to know in his word because Jesus' own words are only available in a translation.

Now ponder this; who instituted the various languages that are spoken? Now I ask what was the great commission that Jesus gave us? If we are to preach the good news to the whole world, then that involves translations, not forcing people to learn a certain language that you prefer.

Further, I want to impress on you that the words contained in a language do not rule over the whole set of possible ideas/concepts that can be expressed in a language. We can impart the meaning of a concept even if a language does not have an explicit word for such an idea or concept. Scripture is ripe with these as much in scripture deals with the heavenly while words have meaning from earthly origins. And so Jesus spoke in parables to use earthly ideas to teach of heavenly ideas.

Now a specific example where words in a language do not rule over the expressible ideas. The OT was originally written in Hebrew which did not have a word for what we now call a soul in English. Does that mean that they did not have a soul or comprehension of a spiritual part of them that lives after their bodies had died?

Lastly I will just remind you what you also avoid in your red herring, discussing translations, meanings and etymology of words instead of the point of the argument.

Next, read the part you skipped over in Luke 1 where the same angel said the like about John the Baptist, he being great, Mary being blessed. Great has the implication of his position and accomplishments, blessed has the connotation of a receiver of great things. There is no question that Mary is blessed and should be respected, the other statements you make about her is what I question.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

@AnticipateHisComing

The following is an informal rule reminder only, since in our discussion of personhood we are approaching the boundaries of Nicene Christian theology.

My discussion has not mentioned personhood, while you have with broader meaning then current English use of person. I only used the word person.

The word person used to describe the members of the Holy Trinity is not an analogy; there are literally three persons in one God; to suggest otherwise

As moderator, you should closely read the exact words posted and quote them before making assessment that what they suggest might be in violation of the SOF. Here let me again quote the words I wrote.

As names carry weight, I will never say God is a person, even though he is 3 "persons" in one.

is to reject the Niceno-Constantinoplitan Creed of 381, which is the Statement of Faith for Christianforums.com; non-Nicene Christians strictly speaking may not post in General Theology; in practice, we generally let them post as long as they do not teach against the Statement of Faith; I am pretty sure that claiming God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are not actually literal persons would be interpreted by my peers as an SOP violation. So I just want to give you a heads up on that. On the other hand, there is no rule precluding you from arguing angels are not personas).

If you want to argue the three persons of the Trinity are not literal persons, you should create a thread in Controversial Christian Theology.

If by the way you did not mean to deny their literal personhood, my apologies. I just want to keep us on topic and make sure we stay out of trouble and enjoy a friendly debate within the rules of GT.

I challenge you to quote words I posted that suggest an understanding of the Trinity that does not fit the Nicene Creed which is the SOF. If you can't, then don't make false accusations of my belief and statements; they only serve to as you say, derail the argument.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Here we have to be very careful to avoid violating the SOP of general theology.

Let me clarify what the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed say: there is one God, in three persons, prosopa.

If you are going to yet again lecture me on the rules to post in GT then you should note that the Athanasian Creed is not one of them.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

As moderator, you should closely read the exact words posted and quote them before making assessment that what they suggest might be in violation of the SOF. Here let me again quote the words I wrote.

I challenge you to quote words I posted that suggest an understanding of the Trinity that does not fit the Nicene Creed which is the SOF. If you can't, then don't make false accusations of my belief and statements; they only serve to as you say, derail the argument.

If you are going to yet again lecture me on the rules to post in GT then you should note that the Athanasian Creed is not one of them.

God bless you. Let me begin by saying I love you and really enjoy debating with you, and I apologize if I have caused you any consternation.

I was not "lecturing you" on the rules of the GT, nor even posting a formal rules reminder Mod Hat, but simply posting a friendly suggestion you that you appeared to be edging close to the limits of what is allowed in General Theology.

I post friendly suggestions all the time to help members avoid inadvertantly violating the rules and to make sure everyone stays happy.

It would probably be an SOF violation to deny that the three persons of the Holy Trinity are literal persons according to the Biblical use of the term.

My reference to the Athanasian Creed was not in the scope of my friendly suggestion. Just so you know, moderators are forbidden from moderating threads we debate in, in order to ensure absolute fairness. Although we can post formal rules reminders if it is really needed. In your case, we weren't even there, I just wanted to make sure you were aware rhat if you disagreed with the idea that God is in three literal persons (not three literal human beings, but three prosops, as the original Greek says), that you would want to post a thread on that in CCT.

My post on the Athanasian Creed was intended as a response to another part of your argument.

I am sensing a bit of apprehension or hostility, and I want to tell you before we proceed any further that I love you as a human and enjoy debating with you. I don't want to do anything to hurt your feelings. I want to make sure you understand that, and that we can have a friendly debate, before we proceed. Can we be buddies and have a fun friendly debate please?

Once again, God bless you!

 

[SteveCaruso]

Koine Greek is sufficiently nuanced, I believe, as to be able to encapsulate the ideas expressed by our Lord in Gallilean Aramaic, and the nuances of OT Hebrew and Aramaic, without a material loss of meaning ( @SteveCaruso might disagree with me on this point).

Outside of some very specific examples, I largely agree with that assertion. Koine and Galilean existed simultaneously for long enough to allow such crossover, and most of the examples I could point to otherwise are simply due to ambiguity that Koine could have expressed if said ambiguity were resolved in the opposite direction.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So did Mary descend from heaven to have her child or did she have him in heaven? You think verse 1 proves Mary the saint is in heaven, but she did not have Jesus in heaven as follows in verse 2.

Well, as you say below, there is symbolism ([sarcasm]REALLY??????[/sarcasm]). The woman gave birth to a child, though, and we know the child is Jesus, therefore, ergo, so....the woman is Mary.

Further, in Revelation 12:6 did Mary only live for 1260 days after Jesus' birth? Did a dragon with 7 heads come and attack Mary? Did Mary grow 2 wings as Revelation 6:14 says and take her to the wilderness? Understand that there is symbolism here. As Mary did not literally grow wings, the women is not literally the women Mary. This text symbolizes the New Testament Church. As symbol, there is reference to Mary who was the mother of Jesus which brought the NT age.

Verse 6 does not say that she lived only 1260 days. It says she was cared for for 1260 days. It appears that the dragon did try to attack Mary. The wings of an eagle are a symbol of power. You are right, though. Mary is the mother of the Church, too, as shown here.

In conclusion, Revelation 12:16 clears up the symbolism by stating that the dragon made war with the offspring of the women. Now if the verse ends by defining the offspring of the women as those that "keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" it should be obvious that the "women with child" was not Mary as according to the Catholics, she had no other children. The offspring are all the members of the elect. The "Mother" of the elect is the Holy Spirit, for it is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus was conceived and it is through the Holy Spirit that creates children of God/ offspring.

Yes, the dragon made war with the offspring of the woman, the body of the Church. What you have to do is interpret Revelation on one of the four levels of interpretation at a time, not cutting up and down. On a literal level, Mary is the mother of Jesus and is in heaven. On a symbolic level, she is the mother of the Church and has great power.

 

[PanDeVida]

Mary is an excellent example of a godly women. She was most likely a submissive and dutiful wife and a wonderful mother to several children. Unfortunately, there are those who seemingly worship her, which is a clear violation of the first commandment. This problem of idolatry concerning Mary has required a de-emphasis of her in many Christian circles.

RC, who was Virgin Mary's true Spouse was it Joseph or the Holy Spirit?

RC, if you answered Joseph you are incorrect! Joseph, himself did not want anything to do with Mary, when he thought that she was pregnant with another man's baby, how much more now after a dream he had that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary had conceived, by???

RC, the True Spouse of Virgin Mary is the Holy Spirit, not Joseph! Joseph, after his Dream knew his New Role in the Life of Jesus and Mary, and that was one of proxy/caregiver and a way that others will not condemn or looked up on Virgin Mary in a negative way.

Lets say I was Joseph, and virgin Mary was Virgin Mary, and I after a dream, find that Mary had conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit/God, Would I then have sexual intercourse with Mary who's womb gave Birth to our Savior Jesus Christ??? NO! NO! NO!...! Would You? would any holy man? NO! I would Know my ROLE in the Life of Jesus and Mary and that is to act as Guardian and protector ONLY!!!

Proof is in Scripture, thus the reason why Joseph was no longer in the Picture when Christ became an adult, Joseph was not needed as Guardian and Protector, Joseph fulfilled His ROLE!!!

RC, now doubt you will quote to me Scriptures that says Mary and Joseph had other Children by these Scripture verses below:

Matthew 1: 25And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (This is no proof of Joseph had sexual intercourse with Virgin Mary)

Matthew 13: 55Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? 57And they were scandalized in his regard.

RC, regarding Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? RC, well, we know that the Jews who questioned "Is This The Carpenter's Son" Got it Wrong!!! RC, these Jews thought that Jesus Christ was the biological father of Joseph, NOT! The only thing that THESE JEWS were correct in saying was: "Is not His Mother Called Mary". RC, we know that Virgin Mary is 100% the Biological Mother of Jesus Christ.

RC, regarding ..."and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? (Joseph, would never touch Mary in a sexual way EVER/NEVER knowing that Her True Spouse is the HOLY SPIRIT! These Jews had it wrong with Joseph being the Biological father of Jesus, and in regards to them mentioning the words brother and sisters of Jesus, is incorrect as well as actual siblings).


THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF JESUS – HIS COUSINS

The brothers and sisters of Jesus appear in Matt 12:46; Mark 3:32; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-10; Acts 1:14. They are not blood brothers and sisters of Jesus but his cousins. You may ask, “What is the evidence for making this claim?” The following are reasons.

1. In Mark 15:40 and Matt 27:56 there is mention of a Mary who is the mother of James and Joseph. James and Joseph are two of the four named elsewhere in the Gospels as brothers of Jesus. Clearly this Mary could not be Mary the mother of Jesus because the evangelists would have stated clearly if she were. So the crucifixion scene suggests that Mary is not the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
   
   
2. When on the cross in John, Jesus gives his mother to John to be looked after (John 19:25- 27). According to Jewish law, if Jesus had younger brothers and sisters it would be beyond strange and would be illegal if Jesus asked someone who was not a family member to look after his mother.
   
   
3. We believe that Semitic usage of the words “brother” and “sister” underlies their usage in the Gospels. There is no word in Aramaic or Hebrew for cousin so brother/sister were used instead. Even when the Hebrew OT was being translated into Greek in the LXX/Septuagint the practice continued since it was the Semitic way of expression. Likewise it continued in the NT, following its adoption in the LXX. Examples in the OT of uncle/nephew being translated as “brother” are the following:
   1. in Gen 13:8 where the Hebrew describes Abraham and Lot as brothers whereas they are uncle and nephew.
      
      
   2. Gen 14:14
      
      
   3. We see the same in Gen 29:11-15 to describe the relationship between
      
      Jacob and his uncle Lot.
   4. Likewise in 1 Chron 23:22 the same word adelphos (brother) is used to
      
      translate cousins.
   The word “brother” was used sometimes to refer to all Jews. See Deut 15:12; 17:15; 22:1; Rom 9:3
   
   
4. When Matt writes in 1:25 that Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to Jesus the use of “until” ἕως οὗ (heos hou in Greek) does not imply that they had marital relations after the birth. heos hou in Greek implies continuation beyond the time indicated. Other examples of similar usages are 2 Sam 6:23 where we read that Michal had no children until the day she died. Another usage is in Deut 34:6 where no one knows where Moses is buried until this day (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης). The use of until may not be evident in some of translations because translators have removed it due to it making for a strange translation. Gen 35:4 in the LXX adds until this day (ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας). See also Psa 123:2 ἕως οὗ (122:2 in the LXX); Isa 46:4; In Matt 28:20 Jesus is with us until the end of the age (ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος). Surely Jesus did not mean that he would not be with us after the dissolution of the world. In 1 Cor 15:25 Christ must reign until (ἄχρι οὗ rather than ἕως οὗ) he has put all his enemies under his feet. Surely this does not mean that he will not reign afterwards.
5. Describing Jesus as Mary‟s “first-born” in Luke 2:7 does not imply that Jesus had younger brothers. It was the normal way to describe the first baby whether or not other children followed. The attitude of the “brothers” betrays that they are not children born.

RC, you stated: "Mary is an excellent example of a godly women". RC, you are correct in saying so. Another question to you is would a "Godly Woman" who conceived by the Holy Spirit, would Virgin Mary want any man to touch Her in a sexual way???

RC, is Joseph a Godly Man??? A Godly Man WOULD NOT!

 

[RC1970]

RC, who was Virgin Mary's true Spouse was it Joseph or the Holy Spirit?

RC, if you answered Joseph you are incorrect! Joseph, himself did not want anything to do with Mary, when he thought that she was pregnant with another man's baby, how much more now after a dream he had that it was by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary had conceived, by???

RC, the True Spouse of Virgin Mary is the Holy Spirit, not Joseph! Joseph, after his Dream knew his New Role in the Life of Jesus and Mary, and that was one of proxy/caregiver and a way that others will not condemn or looked up on Virgin Mary in a negative way.

Lets say I was Joseph, and virgin Mary was Virgin Mary, and I after a dream, find that Mary had conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit/God, Would I then have sexual intercourse with Mary who's womb gave Birth to our Savior Jesus Christ??? NO! NO! NO!...! Would You? would any holy man? NO! I would Know my ROLE in the Life of Jesus and Mary and that is to act as Guardian and protector ONLY!!!

Proof is in Scripture, thus the reason why Joseph was no longer in the Picture when Christ became an adult, Joseph was not needed as Guardian and Protector, Joseph fulfilled His ROLE!!!

RC, now doubt you will quote to me Scriptures that says Mary and Joseph had other Children by these Scripture verses below:

Matthew 1: 25And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (This is no proof of Joseph had sexual intercourse with Virgin Mary)

Matthew 13: 55Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? 57And they were scandalized in his regard.

RC, regarding Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? RC, well, we know that the Jews who questioned "Is This The Carpenter's Son" Got it Wrong!!! RC, these Jews thought that Jesus Christ was the biological father of Joseph, NOT! The only thing that THESE JEWS were correct in saying was: "Is not His Mother Called Mary". RC, we know that Virgin Mary is 100% the Biological Mother of Jesus Christ.

RC, regarding ..."and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? (Joseph, would never touch Mary in a sexual way EVER/NEVER knowing that Her True Spouse is the HOLY SPIRIT! These Jews had it wrong with Joseph being the Biological father of Jesus, and in regards to them mentioning the words brother and sisters of Jesus, is incorrect as well as actual siblings).


THE BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF JESUS – HIS COUSINS

The brothers and sisters of Jesus appear in Matt 12:46; Mark 3:32; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-10; Acts 1:14. They are not blood brothers and sisters of Jesus but his cousins. You may ask, “What is the evidence for making this claim?” The following are reasons.

1. In Mark 15:40 and Matt 27:56 there is mention of a Mary who is the mother of James and Joseph. James and Joseph are two of the four named elsewhere in the Gospels as brothers of Jesus. Clearly this Mary could not be Mary the mother of Jesus because the evangelists would have stated clearly if she were. So the crucifixion scene suggests that Mary is not the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
   
   
2. When on the cross in John, Jesus gives his mother to John to be looked after (John 19:25- 27). According to Jewish law, if Jesus had younger brothers and sisters it would be beyond strange and would be illegal if Jesus asked someone who was not a family member to look after his mother.
   
   
3. We believe that Semitic usage of the words “brother” and “sister” underlies their usage in the Gospels. There is no word in Aramaic or Hebrew for cousin so brother/sister were used instead. Even when the Hebrew OT was being translated into Greek in the LXX/Septuagint the practice continued since it was the Semitic way of expression. Likewise it continued in the NT, following its adoption in the LXX. Examples in the OT of uncle/nephew being translated as “brother” are the following:
   1. in Gen 13:8 where the Hebrew describes Abraham and Lot as brothers whereas they are uncle and nephew.
      
      
   2. Gen 14:14
      
      
   3. We see the same in Gen 29:11-15 to describe the relationship between
      
      Jacob and his uncle Lot.
   4. Likewise in 1 Chron 23:22 the same word adelphos (brother) is used to
      
      translate cousins.
   The word “brother” was used sometimes to refer to all Jews. See Deut 15:12; 17:15; 22:1; Rom 9:3
   
   
4. When Matt writes in 1:25 that Joseph did not know Mary until she had given birth to Jesus the use of “until” ἕως οὗ (heos hou in Greek) does not imply that they had marital relations after the birth. heos hou in Greek implies continuation beyond the time indicated. Other examples of similar usages are 2 Sam 6:23 where we read that Michal had no children until the day she died. Another usage is in Deut 34:6 where no one knows where Moses is buried until this day (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης). The use of until may not be evident in some of translations because translators have removed it due to it making for a strange translation. Gen 35:4 in the LXX adds until this day (ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας). See also Psa 123:2 ἕως οὗ (122:2 in the LXX); Isa 46:4; In Matt 28:20 Jesus is with us until the end of the age (ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος). Surely Jesus did not mean that he would not be with us after the dissolution of the world. In 1 Cor 15:25 Christ must reign until (ἄχρι οὗ rather than ἕως οὗ) he has put all his enemies under his feet. Surely this does not mean that he will not reign afterwards.
5. Describing Jesus as Mary‟s “first-born” in Luke 2:7 does not imply that Jesus had younger brothers. It was the normal way to describe the first baby whether or not other children followed. The attitude of the “brothers” betrays that they are not children born.

RC, you stated: "Mary is an excellent example of a godly women". RC, you are correct in saying so. Another question to you is would a "Godly Woman" who conceived by the Holy Spirit, would Virgin Mary want any man to touch Her in a sexual way???

RC, is Joseph a Godly Man??? A Godly Man WOULD NOT!

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." ~ Mark Twain

 

[paul becke]

There is nothing like Lourdes anywhere in the world. France is the birthplace of modern medicine, and once things began to happen at Lourdes, professional medical interest was aroused. For over a century there has been an iinternational medical committee there, recording what happens, getting medical history, reducing the events to the realm of scientific data, and evaluating what has occurred to determine whether or not iit is scientifically explainable. It is not some body of imams or Seamus who makes the scientific evaluation, but professional medical People. They didn't come there to prove something religious, but because the healing of medically incurable cases is of interest to science. This is France, not Burma.

Truth is, thousands of these medically inexplicable hearings have happened there, with great regularity., under the nose of science, documented by medical personnel, not merely testified to by Mystics and enthusiasts. There are mystic sites all over the world. None of them are anything like Lourdes, because none of them are documented scientific data - just anecdotes of religious believers. Those other places are more obscure. They do not have the sheer volume of miracle, and none are within the data set of modern science. Lourdes is, because Lourdes is the real thing, a fountain of miracles of God, proof of the divine agency of Mary, disproof of all who deny the emissarial role of Mary, and disproof of the doctrine that miracle ended in the First Century. It is one of the ways that I know for sure that the Catholic religion is real, because these miracles are in the province of science. The LACK of any other place like Lourdes - any other place with thousands of scientifically documented, inexplicable medical events - is itself a significant data point. Lourdes is. And it is unique. And the girl who saw Mary is herself incorrupt. And all of that is a clear and unambiguous revelation from God, which features prominently in my certitude that Catholicism is the real deal, proven in the modern world, by the modern Western science to which I give such great respect.

Personal revelation and the NDE's of the blind makes me a theist. The Shroud of Turin makes me a Christian. The Incorrupt make me a Catholic. The Lanciano miracle causes me to really accept transsubstatuation, and Lourdes convinces me of the significance of Mary, of the necessity of going past just the Bible to understand God's working with us, and that God continues to abide in the Church in spite of the sins and crimes and horrors of the Catholic past, distant and recent. My religion is proven to me by scientifically examinable miracle. I think that the same approach could give immense comfort and certitude to many others, too. God does these miracles in public and leaves examinable evidence of them for a REASON. Lourdes exists under the eyes of modern science for a reason. The lack of any OTHER Lourdes in the world ALSO has a reason.

Are you familiar with the mystics of Kibeho in Rwanda, vicomte13? Fascinating. This is a good introduction :

VISIONS OF THE NETHERWORLD AT AFRICAN SITE

Incidentally, theism was proven with irrefragible certainty 80 plus years ago, with the advent of quantum mechanics, subsequently confirmed by a number of other experiemntal findings. It's just that the principals of the multinationals exert a totalitarian domination of science, since they provide most if not all of the funding of research departments at the leading universities, and dissidents to the 'orthodox' line, insanely atheistically retrograde as it is, will very swiftly lose their tenure. Although it will often be on some utterly specious pretext.

 

[paul becke]

If there is an image or statue or icon of Mary in a church and people are bowing down or kneeling before it, that is idolatry.

I am not saying you specifically do that, but some people do, and yes, they are actually worshiping Mary.

I see nowhere in the Bible that God commands us to follow or to be like Mary. We are commanded to follow Christ and be Christ-like. That is why I do not accept Mary as a prototype Christian. She was a blessed woman by God, but never elevated to be a prototype model of how we should all be.

Then you don't understand, still less, entertain, the concept of Christ as the True Vine of which we are the branches/the Mystical Body of Christ (composed of his adopted 'other Christs' - us, as his members, and he, as our head), and the Communion of saints. If as a Catholic I say I feel sorry for you on account of your impoverished understanding of our Christian faith and of God's infinite love for us, it cannot but sound patronising, and to you, as well as, to your mind, mistaken ; but that is the truth.

If you cannot appreciate Mary's extraordinary status as the mother, not even a relative, but the mother of the creator and sustainer of the universe, our almighty and omniscient God, not to speak of heaven and hell, how are you ever going to be able to see other people as 'other Christs', at least in embryo - as well as yourself ? Yet, part of a regular family, with a heavenly mother, as well as a heavenly Father - with any number of siblings. God forgive me, but I see Him as being more like the Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe, with a whole tribe of boisterous sprogs, than as an austere martinet.

Personally, I very seldom kneel before a statue of Our Lord, Our Lady or a saint, but that's a cultural thing. I wish I did it regularly, but with my impoverished, agnostic upbringing, it just seems a little surplus to requirements.

 

[JoeP222w]

Then you don't understand, still less, entertain, the concept of Christ as the True Vine of which we are the branches/the Mystical Body of Christ (composed of his adopted 'other Christs' - us, as his members, and he, as our head), and the Communion of saints. If as a Catholic I say I feel sorry for you on account of your impoverished understanding of our Christian faith and of God's infinite love for us, it cannot but sound patronising, and to you, as well as, to your mind, mistaken ; but that is the truth.

If you cannot appreciate Mary's extraordinary status as the mother, not even a relative, but the mother of the creator and sustainer of the universe, our almighty and omniscient God, not to speak of heaven and hell, how are you ever going to be able to see other people as 'other Christs', at least in embryo - as well as yourself ? Yet, part of a regular family, with a heavenly mother, as well as a heavenly Father - with any number of siblings. God forgive me, but I see Him as being more like the Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe, with a whole tribe of boisterous sprogs, than as an austere martinet.

Personally, I very seldom kneel before a statue of Our Lord, Our Lady or a saint, but that's a cultural thing. I wish I did it regularly, but with my impoverished, agnostic upbringing, it just seems a little surplus to requirements.

I really do not understand what you are saying.

Mary is not the Mother of God, in the sense that she pre-existed before God. Nowhere in scripture is she call "heavenly mother".

 

[Root of Jesse]

I really do not understand what you are saying.

Mary is not the Mother of God, in the sense that she pre-existed before God. Nowhere in scripture is she call "heavenly mother".

Here's the logic:
Jesus is God.
Mary is Jesus' mother.
Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
That's the way it is. Mary didn't pre-exist him, but she did pre-exist his humanity. Revelation 12:1 "Woman" clothed with the son. That woman gave birth to a male child which is known to be Jesus. Therefore the woman is Mary. And she's in heaven, bodily.

 

[paul becke]

I really do not understand what you are saying.

Mary is not the Mother of God, in the sense that she pre-existed before God. Nowhere in scripture is she call "heavenly mother".

No, Joe. She is not called, Heavenly Mother, in scripture. There are a million and one other things she is not called in scripture. Nor is it forbidden to us anywhere in scripture to extrapolate whatever apt titles for her that we might choose.

This narrow, quite gratuitously-restrictive adherence to every literal word of scripture is folly. I could call upon her in prayer as My Angelic Mother, if I wanted to, and I am sure she would receive it in the spirit in which it was intended. However, I respect the traditions of the church going back to the earliest centuries and the successors of the Apostles, and a Church that existed before it became fragmented, against God's expressly-stated will.

Not that I blame the Protestants for the schism, because of the utter wickedness and corruption of some of the medieval popes and prelates. But with that rigorist, unwarrantably-restrictive attitude towards interpreting the words of scripture, I feel it is your loss, and a needlessly onerous one.