Speak lovingly of Mary

[narnia59]

of course, that only impresses people who have decided to believe that "tradition" in the first place.

Catholics sneer at LDS.... but they use the same methodology. "because we say so." no, I don't believe the LDS is correct on much. they don't reference the bible on a lot of things.

same applies to the EO and RC's.

problem here is that you think people should accept your traditions as bona fida truth that can't be questioned, while disregarding and reviling everyone elses traditions, because they are not your own.

I have never sneered at the LDS, so please stop making such accusations.

Since you and CJ seem so adamant about bringing them and 'similarities' into the discussion however, let's remember your own views which are consistent to theirs – the Holy Spirit failed to keep the gates of hell from prevailing against the church, it fell into apostasy, and you are now the reformed, restored, however you want to say it church Jesus established, whether you believe it is visible or invisible, and with the absolutely infallible understanding of what is authoritative revelation.

I have never requested that you accept my traditions. I've simply asked that CJ quits inserting his own traditions into mine, and then saying mine are in conflict. Which to this point, he seems unwilling to do.

 

[Thekla]

1. Scripture revealing it is not me or you. It's not my denomination or yours. We BOTH accept the Bible as Authoritative. We both affirm that the words of the Bible are true, and that Authority is not self. In Luke 1:34, MARY says that at that moment, she was a virgin. We have an objective source OUTSIDE and ABOVE all of us, in writting, that states this - from the mouth of Mary. In the Matthew case, we have an Angel proclaiming them to be husband and wife and that Joseph did not know here until she bore a son.

1. I do not accept your "scripture" as authoratative; we've already found one word switch in your translation.
2. As I've pointed out, the word you reference has more than one meaning.
3. If you are given to reading the OT, you will recognise the use of the word until does not (like your "no position") give any decisive position on what happens "after". Further, the word until often references (ex. Rachel's tomb, etc) an ONGOING condition.

 

[Thekla]

Now, compare this to the report that Mary had no sex EVER. Is that recorded in the Bible? No. Is it stated by Mary? No. Is it even stated by anyone who ever even met Mary? No. What is the source of this? No one knows. What is the confirmation of this? No one knows. So, who affirms the report as true? Only the same two denominations that teach it as true. And neither can confirm that they did that until centuries AFTER Mary died.

You're confusing kerygma, dogma, and doctrine again.
Further - the Church did NOT ITERATE the cannon until hundreds of years after the books were written. Nor is there extant evidence that the books existed as written in those early centuries.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

1. I do not accept your "scripture" as authoratative; we've already found one word switch in your translation.
2. As I've pointed out, the word you reference has more than one meaning.
3. If you are given to reading the OT, you will recognise the use of the word until does not (like your "no position") give any decisive position on what happens "after". Further, the word until often references (ex. Rachel's tomb, etc) an ONGOING condition.

What was the condition that was ongoing with Mary?

Matt 1:25 And not he knew her UNTILL/ewV <2193> of which she brought forth the son of her the firstborn and he calls the name of Him Jesus

Matthew 5:18 "For amen I am saying to ye, till ever may-be-passing-away the Heaven and the Land, iota one or one horn not no may-be-passing-away from the Law, UNTILL/ewV <2193> ever all shall-be-becoming" [Reve 16:17/21:1,6]

Reve 16:17 and the seventh [*messenger] pours out the bowl of him upon the air and came out voice, great, from the sanctuary of-the heaven from the throne saying "it has become"/gegonen <1096> (5754).

 

[Thekla]

3. In a couple of places, as a small addition, I noted that even if we know it to be true (and see #2), there still is the issue or privacy. Again, Mary hereself proclaimed her virginity at that time in Luke 1:34 and it is God who caused such to be penned in Holy Scripture. But where do you have anything form my mother about how often she has sex? If not directly, from God via His Scriptures?

1.Mary iterated an ongoing condition of virginity; you are ignoring her witness to Gabriel.
2. Your biological mother is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Thekla]

3. In a couple of places, as a small addition, I noted that even if we know it to be true (and see #2), there still is the issue or privacy. Again, Mary hereself proclaimed her virginity at that time in Luke 1:34 and it is God who caused such to be penned in Holy Scripture. But where do you have anything form my mother about how often she has sex? If not directly, from God via His Scriptures?

1.Mary iterated an ongoing condition of virginity; you are ignoring her witness to Gabriel.
2. Your biological mother is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Thekla]

1. Why is THIS (how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born) a matter of highest importance, most critical, why the absolute obsession with her hymen at her death? NOW, if the issue was: "Well, there was a debate about the possible Siblings of Jesus" then the dogma would be "Jesus Had No Sibs" and we both know it, so please don't go down that silly road.

Because:
She dedicated herself and her body to use by God; her flesh became Christ's flesh. It was no longer hers to give to any other, in any way.

 

[Thekla]

I'm sorry. That's just wishful thinking.

Betrothed. Angel says go ahead marry her.... he takes her as his "woman"... but they didn't get married.

alrighty then.

1.There is no Biblical evidence that they married; if you want to understand the Bible through your tradition, thats fine. Just admit it, though.
2. There is no Biblical evidence that a marriage was consumated (don't even start with adelphos again )

Edited: after doing a bit more research, in Jewish practice, the term "husband" and "wife" were used at the time of betrothal. The terms did not only indicate marriage. So neither Greek or Hebrew usage "seal" evidence to marriage.

 

[Thekla]

how in the name of Ritz crackers did you come up with this?

you're injecting YOUR "she never got married" into it, and it's bringing you to a rather foolish conclusion.

1. Then prove, using the original language of the passage, that they were married.
2. The conclusion follows: no position on a yes/no proposition (here, a condition) leaves both yes and no as open possibilities. "Yes" or "no" both "exist" until one is selected.

 

[Thekla]

The point kept being made that I and Christ and those who have no position on how often Mary had sex during her lifetime must give proof that she did have sex - and that absent, it MUST be that she did not.

wait, are you dogmatically speaking for Christ here

 

[narnia59]

1. Scripture revealing it is not me or you. It's not my denomination or yours. We BOTH accept the Bible as Authoritative. We both affirm that the words of the Bible are true, and that Authority is not self. In Luke 1:34, MARY says that at that moment, she was a virgin. We have an objective source OUTSIDE and ABOVE all of us, in writting, that states this - from the mouth of Mary. In the Matthew case, we have an Angel proclaiming them to be husband and wife and that Joseph did not know here until she bore a son.





.

From the Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint, the revelations of Tradition are not ‘me or you’ either. We accept Sacred Tradition as authoritative. You again seek to apply only your standard of authoritative and then discuss a Catholic/EO doctrine within the context of your tradition of authority, not ours. Again, you rip out one piece of a unified fabric of doctrine, attempt to pound it into a linear view of Protestant doctrine, and go “Look, it doesn’t fit, so it must be wrong!”

 

[narnia59]

2. Being a virgin AT THE BIRTH of Jesus was regarded as prophetic, and thus is altogether relevant. Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 and notes the necessity of the Virgin Birth (side note: the Isaiah passage is actually pretty fuzzy, I read recently that discoveries reveal that at the time, it was a firm beleif that the Messiah would be born of a Virgin, thus giving new light to the answer Herod got). It is important to the prophecy that Jesus was born to a virgin.





.

And Catholics and Orthodox would contend her perpetual virginity is also quite relevant and important based upon the OT typology and foreshadowing and its fulfillment in the NT, and an accurate understanding of the nature of Christ. Just because you consider any discussion of such items a ‘diversion’ is not really our issue.

 

[narnia59]

Here's the fundamental differences:

1. That Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus is specifically recorded, in writing, by God and comes from the mouth of Mary Herself.

2. There is a prophetic reason for this to be important, Scripture specifically says that the mother of the Messiah will be a virgin at His birth.


.

Your fundamental differences are based upon a Protestant view of authority (1) and a quite limited view of the overall role of the OT in typology and prophecy to selectively choose only that which supports your position (2). Quite not relevant to the Catholic view.

 

[narnia59]

Now, compare this to the report that Mary had no sex EVER. Is that recorded in the Bible? No. Is it stated by Mary? No. Is it even stated by anyone who ever even met Mary? No. What is the source of this? No one knows. What is the confirmation of this? No one knows. So, who affirms the report as true? Only the same two denominations that teach it as true. And neither can confirm that they did that until centuries AFTER Mary died.


So, why is it "okay" to talk about Mary being a virgin at the birth of Jesus? Because we know it to be true, Mary Herself proclaims it, it is relevant to the Gospel since if not so then Jesus is not the Messiah. Now, how does this relate to whether Mary had sex once 30 years later? Nothing. She doesn't say so. The Bible doesn't say so. It seems the Church didn't say so for centuries. It has no relevance to anything.


.

As Thekla has so wisely pointed out, the only way you know it to be true is that you accept the Sacred Tradition that the Gospels you are reading are authoritative, and then reject that Tradition where it suits your purpose. Your statement that it has no relevance to anything may be your pious opinion, but it is quite rejected as authoritative by the Catholics/Orthodox, so it’s a moot point as far as we’re concerned.

But I would have to ask does it really make it ‘okay’ to say things you have said are unloving and hurtful towards Mary simply because one thinks they are true based upon their own standard of what defines truth? Is it your position that our loving Father said well Mary, it’s necessary for me to allow Matthew and Luke speak publicly about your sex life even though I’m sure that’s going to be quite hurtful and embarrassing to you?

Or is it really your position that it is only hurtful when you choose it to be to suit your purpose? Why would it be more ‘hurtful’ to her after rather than before?

 

[narnia59]

1. Why is THIS (how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born) a matter of highest importance, most critical, why the absolute obsession with her hymen at her death? NOW, if the issue was: "Well, there was a debate about the possible Siblings of Jesus" then the dogma would be "Jesus Had No Sibs" and we both know it, so please don't go down that silly road.
.

This has actually been responded to many times in the thread, but you choose to not engage and then proceed to label the responses as 'diversions' and request people to get back on topic.

 

[narnia59]

2). Where is the substantiation? We all agree there is substantiation for Mary being a virgin at His birth, for Joseph not "knowing" here UNTIL Jesus was born - because there it is, in an object, written record where God is the Author: not me, not you, not God. That's sufficient, I think. I accept it also because you do (recall my longstanding willingness to embrace any Authority that you will accept when a noncatholic points to such). This is a critical issue for Catholics since the Catholic Catechism (NOT ME) states that to share an unsubstantiated report about someone is specifically to SIN against them (it's word, NOT MINE). And it is MY view that to sin against someone is not to distinctively LOVE them (the issue of this thread): thus, substantiation to the level of the proclaimation (in your case: dogma, the highest possible level of certainty) and of a nature that the RCC itself regards as valid (or else it's not valid) when others use it, is central to the issue of whether it is sinful or loving toward the person who is the object of the report. In the case of the Virgin birth, such exists. In the case of the Perpetual Virginity, none has been offered.
.

No substantiation has been offered according to your standard, but the doctrine is not yours. Perhaps you would be better served to assign your standards to your doctrines, and not attempt to be the authoritative standard for the doctrines of others?

God is not the ‘literal’ author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the life-breath of Scripture, working through men. It is quite a shame that many do not realize the Holy Spirit is also the life-breath of the church, working through men.

As pointed out before, our standard is not that ‘all agree’; it is that it is part of the deposit of faith given to the Apostles. Why you insist on defining an authoritative standard for us that is but your own pious opinion is beyond me.

Your ‘critical issue’ to Catholics is one of the most absurd things you keep bringing up. You take your standard of what is authority, your definition of what is rumor, insert it into our beliefs, and then make an accusation against Catholics for having conflicting beliefs. Again, our only conflict is with your self-proclamation of what constitutes authority and your self-definition of rumor, for we reject it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

 

[Thekla]

What was the condition that was ongoing with Mary?

Matt 1:25 And not he knew her UNTILL/ewV <2193> of which she brought forth the son of her the firstborn and he calls the name of Him Jesus

Matthew 5:18 "For amen I am saying to ye, till ever may-be-passing-away the Heaven and the Land, iota one or one horn not no may-be-passing-away from the Law, UNTILL/ewV <2193> ever all shall-be-becoming" [Reve 16:17/21:1,6]

Reve 16:17 and the seventh [*messenger] pours out the bowl of him upon the air and came out voice, great, from the sanctuary of-the heaven from the throne saying "it has become"/gegonen <1096> (5754).

Hi, LLoJ !

"I know no man." (As a response to an announced future pregnancy from one who is betrothed. Even in English, thats a 'peculiar' response. The academics have gone through a number of positions on the nature of the present tense in Koine Greek; some refer to it as "durative", some as "conditional not temporal", others as (iirc) "temporal" or "sometimes temporal". Depends on who you're talking to/reading).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi, LLoJ !

"I know no man." (As a response to an announced future pregnancy from one who is betrothed. Even in English, thats a 'peculiar' response. The academics have gone through a number of positions on the nature of the present tense in Koine Greek; some refer to it as "durative", some as "conditional not temporal", others as (iirc) "temporal" or "sometimes temporal". Depends on who you're talking to/reading).

Hi Thekla. Yeah the Koine greek is tough. I always put the greek texts up with verses so as to be able to study on it better [usually the transliterated greek].

Would this be the correct tenses for this word in these verses?

Here he just appears to be acknowledging what mary said in Luke 1:34

Matt 1:25 And not he knew her untill of which she brought forth the son of her the firstborn and he calls the name of Him Jesus

Textus Rec.) Matthew 1:25 kai ouk eginwsken authn ewV ou eteken ton uion authV ton prwtotokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou ihsoun

Here it implies she is not "knowing". Does that me sexual relations?

Luke 1:34 Said yet mariam toward the messenger how shall be this since a man not I am knowing.

Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Also this word used for "man" is interesting as there are a few different forms of it used in the greek. It is used the last time in 1 Timo 3:2. This is just too much for me to get into I'm afraid. I know this doesn't help much.

Luke 1:34 Said yet mariam toward the messenger how shall be this since a man not I am knowing.

Textus Rec.) Luke 1:34 eipen de mariam proV ton aggelon pwV estai touto epei andra ou ginwskw

Rotherham) 1 Timothy 3:2 It is needful, then, for, the overseer, to be irreproachable, a husband, of one wife, sober, of sound mind, orderly, hospitable, apt in teaching,

Textus Rec.) 1 Timothy 3:2 dei oun ton episkopon anepilhpton einai miaV gunaikoV andra nhfaleon swfrona kosmion filoxenon didaktikon