Something About Mary (2)

[seeingeyes]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Something About Mary"

 

[SolomonVII]

Feels pretty good to finally get the last word in a thread.
To carry on from where I left off, there is indeed something about Mary, but a lot of what there is about Mary now is simply not derived from apostolic teachings.

 

[sculleywr]

Feels pretty good to finally get the last word in a thread.
To carry on from where I left off, there is indeed something about Mary, but a lot of what there is about Mary now is simply not derived from apostolic teachings.

There is a lot derived from Apostolic teaching which is not found in scripture. Quite frankly, though, we know that the PoJ was written by the hand of an Apostle, and particularly, a step-brother to Christ.

 

[SolomonVII]

There is a lot derived from Apostolic teaching which is not found in scripture. Quite frankly, though, we know that the PoJ was written by the hand of an Apostle, and particularly, a step-brother to Christ.

Quite frankly, most biblical scholars are well aware that the PoJ was pseudo-apostolic, much more culturally Roman than Jewish.
Marcion has been conjectured as a likely source.

And yes, there is a lot 'derived' from apostolic teaching that came hundreds of years after the apostles were all dead even. Some call that Sacred Tradition. Others call it fluff.

That is especially true when we are talking about 'something about Mary'.

 

[Thekla]

In the early centuries of AD/CE, authorship was not treated as it is now. To wit, a work to be ascribed to an author who did not pen the work when the work contained the content of someone's teaching/ideas. We just operate under a different mindset on the authorship idea now.

 

[SolomonVII]

In the early centuries of AD/CE, authorship was not treated as it is now. To wit, a work to be ascribed to an author who did not pen the work when the work contained the content of someone's teaching/ideas. We just operate under a different mindset on the authorship idea now.

Once that is known, and the historicity of the authorship as being directly and personally under the tutelage of the given apostle, then this is what can be fairly called of apostolic origin.

 

[sculleywr]

Quite frankly, most biblical scholars are well aware that the PoJ was pseudo-apostolic, much more culturally Roman than Jewish.
Marcion has been conjectured as a likely source.

And yes, there is a lot 'derived' from apostolic teaching that came hundreds of years after the apostles were all dead even. Some call that Sacred Tradition. Others call it fluff.

That is especially true when we are talking about 'something about Mary'.

Key word in your whole thing:

CONJECTURED.

That is all of what your stance is. Pure conjecture. Whereas even close sources recognize the Apostolic nature of the PoJ, such as Justin Martyr.

You can only say that because of the absurd notion that a canon of the Scripture was held to in the first and second centuries. Marcion was the FIRST person to even pen down a canon. There was no universally accepted canon until the 400's, and that, even, is a very gracious dating, since there were STILL arguments over Revelations until the late 1400's.

Sola Scriptura is an extra-scriptural tradition invented by men in the early part of the Protestant Reformation. And it should be treated as such

 

[SolomonVII]

Key word in your whole thing:

CONJECTURED.

Sure.
It is a key word. I never used it thoughtlessly.

Because nobody knows who wrote it.

There is no proof that he wrote it. There is also zero evidence that anyone of the family of Jesus wrote it. As it stands, the cultural picture that the author draws is more indicative of a Roman background than a Jewish one.
Bottom line, this is something that people closer in time to the actual historic event deemed to not be canon material.

That is all of what your stance is. Pure conjecture. Whereas even close sources recognize the Apostolic nature of the PoJ, such as Justin Martyr.

There is a difference between you saying that it is so, and it actually being so.

You can only say that because of the absurd notion that a canon of the Scripture was held to in the first and second centuries. Marcion was the FIRST person to even pen down a canon. There was no universally accepted canon until the 400's, and that, even, is a very gracious dating, since there were STILL arguments over Revelations until the late 1400's.

Sola Scriptura is an extra-scriptural tradition invented by men in the early part of the Protestant Reformation. And it should be treated as such.

Tying the doctrine of the church to the actual teachings of the apostles on the other hand is credal, and has been since at least the time of Nicene. New Testament writings have been deemed to be apostolic through the informal canonization process that existed in those early years. For that reason, basing an apostolic faith in verified apostolic teachings is a reasonable thing for an apostolic church to do. Basing the faith in pseudoepigraphia is engaging in a blind faith over and above the verified apostolic faith which remains based in universally acknowledged and universally canonized apostolic scripture.

Which is fine, as long as that point is acknowledged. 'It must be true because my denomination teaches it is true' is a blind faith for more than just EO, of course, and the teachings about Mary vary considerably among those churches which rely on extra-apostolic traditions and ideas of questionable and.or pseudo-epigraphic origin.

 

[sculleywr]

Sure.
It is a key word. I never used it thoughtlessly.

Because nobody knows who wrote it.

There is no proof that he wrote it. There is also zero evidence that anyone of the family of Jesus wrote it. As it stands, the cultural picture that the author draws is more indicative of a Roman background than a Jewish one.
Bottom line, this is something that people closer in time to the actual historic event deemed to not be canon material.


There is a difference between you saying that it is so, and it actually being so.

There is a difference when Justin Martyr references it in 150, whereas the gospels are not identified in authorship until the 160's.

Tying the doctrine of the church to the actual teachings of the apostles on the other hand is credal, and has been since at least the time of Nicene. New Testament writings have been deemed to be apostolic through the informal canonization process that existed in those early years. For that reason, basing an apostolic faith in verified apostolic teachings is a reasonable thing for an apostolic church to do. Basing the faith in pseudoepigraphia is engaging in a blind faith over and above the verified apostolic faith which remains based in universally acknowledged and universally canonized apostolic scripture.

Which is fine, as long as that point is acknowledged. 'It must be true because my denomination teaches it is true' is a blind faith for more than just EO, of course, and the teachings about Mary vary considerably among those churches which rely on extra-apostolic traditions and ideas of questionable and.or pseudo-epigraphic origin.

Problem is, the identification of the "pseudo-epigraph's" authorship precedes the written identification of the Gospels

 

[Standing Up]

Quite frankly, most biblical scholars are well aware that the PoJ was pseudo-apostolic, much more culturally Roman than Jewish.
Marcion has been conjectured as a likely source.

And yes, there is a lot 'derived' from apostolic teaching that came hundreds of years after the apostles were all dead even. Some call that Sacred Tradition. Others call it fluff.

That is especially true when we are talking about 'something about Mary'.

I can't believe people are arguing for known forgery. They may as well accept what RC says when it based things on what came to be known forgeries. Incredible.

 

[Standing Up]

There is a difference when Justin Martyr references it in 150, whereas the gospels are not identified in authorship until the 160's.



Problem is, the identification of the "pseudo-epigraph's" authorship precedes the written identification of the Gospels

The cave birth? Or the PoJ?

 

[Standing Up]

Scullywy (sic)-_- He did not call them Scriptures, however. Every single one of them quoted from the New Testament, from Irenaeus all the way to John Chrystostom. That does not mean that they were Sola Scriptura. Here is what Irenaeus, who you seem to imply was Sola Scriptura, said about ignoring Tradition:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."


​

SU: But notice Irenaeus' first qualifying statement about Tradition---ORIGINATES from apostles. What are they? How do you KNOW? It is written is the only way.

 

[sculleywr]

Scullywy (sic)-_- He did not call them Scriptures, however. Every single one of them quoted from the New Testament, from Irenaeus all the way to John Chrystostom. That does not mean that they were Sola Scriptura. Here is what Irenaeus, who you seem to imply was Sola Scriptura, said about ignoring Tradition:

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."


​

SU: But notice Irenaeus' first qualifying statement about Tradition---ORIGINATES from apostles. What are they? How do you KNOW? It is written is the only way.

And you believe that EVERY LETTER THE APOSTLES WROTE is included in the NT? If you do, you would be quite wrong. Notice later what he said in that same writing:

4.2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.​

So Barbarians had the Tradition without ANY written documents? I thought the Tradition he spoke of was in written documents!!!

It must be something else...Perhaps it was not written documents alone to which he referred!

 

[sculleywr]

The cave birth? Or the PoJ?

Actually, the continued virginity of Mary, which was established in the PoJ.

 

[sculleywr]

I can't believe people are arguing for known forgery. They may as well accept what RC says when it based things on what came to be known forgeries. Incredible.

It isn't a known forgery. It's an ALLEGED forgery. And that is a case which is weaker than the allegation that Obama blew up the twin towers with mind control.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sure.
It is a key word. I never used it thoughtlessly.

Because nobody knows who wrote it.

There is no proof that he wrote it. There is also zero evidence that anyone of the family of Jesus wrote it. As it stands, the cultural picture that the author draws is more indicative of a Roman background than a Jewish one.
Bottom line, this is something that people closer in time to the actual historic event deemed to not be canon material.

To be frank, nobody knows who wrote the gospels, either. There's nothing definitive that says that Matthew wrote Matthew, or Mark wrote Mark. We get that from Sacred Tradition.

So just because we can't prove who wrote something doesn't mean it's not valid writing, or useful for doctrinal issues.

There is a difference between you saying that it is so, and it actually being so.

You can only say that because of the absurd notion that a canon of the Scripture was held to in the first and second centuries. Marcion was the FIRST person to even pen down a canon. There was no universally accepted canon until the 400's, and that, even, is a very gracious dating, since there were STILL arguments over Revelations until the late 1400's.


Tying the doctrine of the church to the actual teachings of the apostles on the other hand is credal, and has been since at least the time of Nicene. New Testament writings have been deemed to be apostolic through the informal canonization process that existed in those early years. For that reason, basing an apostolic faith in verified apostolic teachings is a reasonable thing for an apostolic church to do. Basing the faith in pseudoepigraphia is engaging in a blind faith over and above the verified apostolic faith which remains based in universally acknowledged and universally canonized apostolic scripture.

Which is fine, as long as that point is acknowledged. 'It must be true because my denomination teaches it is true' is a blind faith for more than just EO, of course, and the teachings about Mary vary considerably among those churches which rely on extra-apostolic traditions and ideas of questionable and.or pseudo-epigraphic origin.

Why something must be true, for Apostolic Churches, is because the belief goes back to those who were taught by Jesus and by the apostles. There really hasn't been anything new in Christianity since the early 300's.

 

[sculleywr]

To be frank, nobody knows who wrote the gospels, either. There's nothing definitive that says that Matthew wrote Matthew, or Mark wrote Mark. We get that from Sacred Tradition.

So just because we can't prove who wrote something doesn't mean it's not valid writing, or useful for doctrinal issues.

Why something must be true, for Apostolic Churches, is because the belief goes back to those who were taught by Jesus and by the apostles. There really hasn't been anything new in Christianity since the early 300's.

There wasn't even anything new in Christianity since the beginning, other than heresies.

 

[SolomonVII]

To be frank, nobody knows who wrote the gospels, either. There's nothing definitive that says that Matthew wrote Matthew, or Mark wrote Mark. We get that from Sacred Tradition.

It is not part of RCC Sacred Tradition that the apostle James wrote the PoJ, nor is it part of your tradition that PoJ is Scripture, nor is it part of your tradition that those called the brothers of Jesus were his step-brothers.
If it is then Jerome is not St Jerome, but Jerome the heretic.
Just be clear then, what you are arguing for.

So just because we can't prove who wrote something doesn't mean it's not valid writing, or useful for doctrinal issues.

It doesn't mean it is not useful for toilet paper either.
What is the use of having a canon then, if doctrine comes willy-nilly ins spite of what the bishops of yore chose?
You are hardly making the case for your bishops, if you are using non-canonical books for your doctrine.

Why something must be true, for Apostolic Churches, is because the belief goes back to those who were taught by Jesus and by the apostles. There really hasn't been anything new in Christianity since the early 300's.

Sure there has.
Most of Marian dogma, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, and the whole host of dogma that is at the heart of the disputes between the different strata of Christianity are all defined as dogma much, much later than all that.
There are no known apostolic teachings that show that any of the apostles taught the things about Mary that the RCC teaches now. If there were, I am sure that you could have shown them to us long, long ago. You are lying to yourself if you believe otherwise.

 

[SolomonVII]

Case in point.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Believed by RCC, irrelevant to EO. Without Augustine, there is no concept of Original Sin, therefore no need for such a dogma.

 

[sculleywr]

Case in point.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Believed by RCC, irrelevant to EO. Without Augustine, there is no concept of Original Sin, therefore no need for such a dogma.

Actually, the Original Sin is something shared by all. Without Augustine, there would be no concept of Original Guilt, which is the doctrine that you are guilty for the actions of Adam.