Speak lovingly of Mary

[Uphill Battle]

utter foolishness.

you do realize what the PV belief requires, right? every passage has to be explained by "that's not what it really means." There is nothing straightforward, there is twisting and turning and apologetics until blue in the face, all to fit a ridiculous premise.


one, They didn't actually get married. (don't pay attention to their betrothal, or the fact that the angel told Joseph, hey, go for it! nor the fact that he took her as his woman, if not the explicit word wife... it's pretty descriptive in itself... people thought they were married.... hmmm.) ignore all the supporting evidence, they didn't get married.

two, Mary's response MUST be an assertion of perpetual virginity, even though she says no such thing. Don't let that bother you, it is, even if she didn't say it!

three, the brothers thing. Yes, it's possible that they are not "real brothers." It isn't the most logical thought, of course... but hey, it fits what we already believe, so lets stick with the one, less than logical explanation, because it's going to jive with what my priest tells me.

four, despite the natural course of marriage (even if we drop the pretend-they-didn't-get-married bit) this one was special, she didn't because she was set apart. Now, we don't believe that sex in a marriage defiles someone, it WOULD in this case. no real logical reason to believe that either.

five, lets misappropriate a passage about a gate, and despite all the things that DON'T make sense, such as the lord sitting in the gate and having lunch, or coming and going as he pleases.... it's about Mary's anatomy. yep, that's it.

that's not all, but it's a good start.

you'll excuse me for rejecting it completely... it only fits if you believe it to begin with, and as I've pointed out in a post that was deliciously ignored, there is no biblical mention of it at all. (Rome, and the others would fall over themselves to produce that if they could.)

 

[Thekla]

utter foolishness.

you do realize what the PV belief requires, right? every passage has to be explained by "that's not what it really means." There is nothing straightforward, there is twisting and turning and apologetics until blue in the face, all to fit a ridiculous premise.

The support for the PV position seem "unreasonable" because they are alien to your tradition; your "clear reading" relies not on the text, but on your assumption that your "tradition's reading" IS IN the text. Your reading interprets all passages in light of an "accultured" understanding - it is likely that you heard about Mary and Christ before you ever read the Bible. In short, you are not reading the Bible "unimprinted".

one, They didn't actually get married. (don't pay attention to their betrothal, or the fact that the angel told Joseph, hey, go for it! nor the fact that he took her as his woman, if not the explicit word wife... it's pretty descriptive in itself... people thought they were married.... hmmm.) ignore all the supporting evidence, they didn't get married.

My point was (and remains) that you cannot prove marriage using the text.
I pointed out, previously, that the language used by the translators for the terminology was based, frankly, on a bias/tradition/assumption. And I have shown that "Semitic ears" understand the terms differently. As for your last point, subsequent to betrothal, pregnancy could be considered "evidence" of marriage; the betrothal was always public. Marriage was typically, but not always, public.

two, Mary's response MUST be an assertion of perpetual virginity, even though she says no such thing. Don't let that bother you, it is, even if she didn't say it!

Again, your charge of absurdity shows the depth of the bias you hold on the matter. Sola Scriptura is not immune to cultural influence (as translation and the discussion on adelphos clearly show). A fresh, literal and logical read of the passages actually defy your tradition's understanding; I would expect that a tradition based on "Sola Scriptura" would REALLY probe the text.

three, the brothers thing. Yes, it's possible that they are not "real brothers." It isn't the most logical thought, of course... but hey, it fits what we already believe, so lets stick with the one, less than logical explanation, because it's going to jive with what my priest tells me.

You've discarded logic for the Annunciation passage, now you want to apply it here ?
Its the "most logical" (whatever that means) based on reading and hearing the passage repeatedly in English, and not being raised in culture that uses the terminology differently than you do. Its based on a translation that is secure enough in its tradition, that it creates bias by failing to footnote the term. Its likely most native English speaking readers have never considered the actual definition (and even broader vernacular use, ie from the same town) of the word adelphos when reading.

four, despite the natural course of marriage (even if we drop the pretend-they-didn't-get-married bit) this one was special, she didn't because she was set apart. Now, we don't believe that sex in a marriage defiles someone, it WOULD in this case. no real logical reason to believe that either.

Mary was a Jew; certainly she knew of the bareness of Sarah and Rachel. Certainly she knew that God could indeed reverse infertility, and cause a child to be conceived through marital relations. (And if sex in marriage defiles, why would the EO continue to honor Sarah, and Abraham, and Rachel, etc.?) Though Zachariah questioned that John could be born to he and Elizabeth (due to biology), Mary does not even get that far. Betrothed, an in expectation of marriage, there was no reason to question Gabriel on the matter in that way unless something else was operative.

five, lets misappropriate a passage about a gate, and despite all the things that DON'T make sense, such as the lord sitting in the gate and having lunch, or coming and going as he pleases.... it's about Mary's anatomy. yep, that's it.

ok - so Sola Scriptura has dumped typology, EXCEPT where it is employed by the NT writers.

you'll excuse me for rejecting it completely... it only fits if you believe it to begin with, and as I've pointed out in a post that was deliciously ignored, there is no biblical mention of it at all. (Rome, and the others would fall over themselves to produce that if they could.)

I frankly don't care about what you accept or reject; I am not interested in swaying your (or anyone's) position on the matter. I am defending a position, and am using only the text to do so. And I have the information to do it because I "chased" the teaching of PV; I wanted to know for myself. I used the text to do so. I have come to the conclusion that - based on language and logic - the position of PV is more than viable; it is the most reasonable. I have then, starting from a pointed investigation of the text and its language, considered also the teachings of the OT (ex., complete assent to God versus the adultery of Israel, the Incarnation and the spiritual and physical ramifications of literally giving the use of one's flesh to enflesh Christ) the persons of the OT and their experience. For myself, I have conducted an investigation.

And, as a show of respect to Mary, to Abraham, and to every other person I've read about in the Bible, I strive to read afresh -- and understand that what I read as "history/account" was for them a life LIVED at the moment, as the events were unfolding. And to not mistake < my reading of the events in which the person was involved > for the <person> I am reading about.

And to keep Christ, not myself, at the center of the reading, not myself.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

219 pages.... 17,501 views...... 2,180 posts......

Go Tyndale..........

 

[Uphill Battle]

The support for the PV position seem "unreasonable" because they are alien to your tradition; your "clear reading" relies not on the text, but on your assumption that your "tradition's reading" IS IN the text. Your reading interprets all passages in light of an "accultured" understanding - it is likely that you heard about Mary and Christ before you ever read the Bible. In short, you are not reading the Bible "unimprinted".

the most handy excuse, when one can't find what you're saying is in the text. Where one reads it and wonders, where the heck is THAT in the text?

My point was (and remains) that you cannot prove marriage using the text.

and you can't prove the dog with the mud on it's paws is the one who tracked it into your house (even if this dog is lying in the foyer) because you didn't see him do it. I'm sorry, but the sticking to the "they weren't married, nuh-uh" lacks reason and credibility.

I pointed out, previously, that the language used by the translators for the terminology was based, frankly, on a bias/tradition/assumption. And I have shown that "Semitic ears" understand the terms differently. As for your last point, subsequent to betrothal, pregnancy could be considered "evidence" of marriage; the betrothal was always public. Marriage was typically, but not always, public.

ah, but it was public. people believed Joseph and Mary to be married. Else, they wouldn't be questioning Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary.

fail.

Again, your charge of absurdity shows the depth of the bias you hold on the matter. Sola Scriptura is not immune to cultural influence (as translation and the discussion on adelphos clearly show). A fresh, literal and logical read of the passages actually defy your tradition's understanding; I would expect that a tradition based on "Sola Scriptura" would REALLY probe the text.

codswollop. Adelphos also means actual, physical brothers. At best, the "they're cousins" is on par with the though that they were actual brothers. The only real reason you have to assert that that is more credible, is because that fits with what you believe. And you have the gall to accuse of bias.

You've discarded logic for the Annunciation passage, now you want to apply it here ?
Its the "most logical" (whatever that means) based on reading and hearing the passage repeatedly in English, and not being raised in culture that uses the terminology differently than you do. Its based on a translation that is secure enough in its tradition, that it creates bias by failing to footnote the term. Its likely most native English speaking readers have never considered the actual definition (and even broader vernacular use, ie from the same town) of the word adelphos when reading.

already addressed. adelphos also means actual brother. And I have absolutely no reason to believe the cousins argument is more credible or valid, specifically with the other evidences that are found in the text.

Mary was a Jew; certainly she knew of the bareness of Sarah and Rachel. Certainly she knew that God could indeed reverse infertility, and cause a child to be conceived through marital relations. (And if sex in marriage defiles, why would the EO continue to honor Sarah, and Abraham, and Rachel, etc.?) Though Zachariah questioned that John could be born to he and Elizabeth (due to biology), Mary does not even get that far. Betrothed, an in expectation of marriage, there was no reason to question Gabriel on the matter in that way unless something else was operative.

such as an understanding that Gabriel wasn't talking about future kids of a future marriage?

you discard this as impossible, of course, but it seems Mary knew that Gabriel was talking about the immediate future, as in right now. how anyone derives "oh! she meant that she intended to be a perpetual virgin!" from it. SPECIFICALLY since she was betrothed to be married. I find it lacking in forsight to plan on marriage, if you never plan on sleeping with your spouse!

ok - so Sola Scriptura has dumped typology, EXCEPT where it is employed by the NT writers.

no. we just ignore flawed, fit-what-we-want-it-to typology.

I frankly don't care about what you accept or reject; I am not interested in swaying your (or anyone's) position on the matter. I am defending a position, and am using only the text to do so.

codswollop. You are using your "it means this and only this, because we already believe this" take on the text.

And I have the information to do it because I "chased" the teaching of PV; I wanted to know for myself. I used the text to do so. I have come to the conclusion that - based on language and logic - the position of PV is more than viable; it is the most reasonable. I have then, starting from a pointed investigation of the text and its language, considered also the teachings of the OT (ex., complete assent to God versus the adultery of Israel, the Incarnation and the spiritual and physical ramifications of literally giving the use of one's flesh to enflesh Christ) the persons of the OT and their experience. For myself, I have conducted an investigation.

interesting. So, you searched the matter, and came to a conclusion. I've done the same, and come to a different one. Of course, I have no doubt that you feel that your search was true, and mine was a product of bias and indoctrination, but here we stand. One of us is wrong.

And, as a show of respect to Mary, to Abraham, and to every other person I've read about in the Bible, I strive to read afresh -- and understand that what I read as "history/account" was for them a life LIVED at the moment, as the events were unfolding. And to not mistake < my reading of the events in which the person was involved > for the <person> I am reading about.

right... that of course, doesn't excuse us from the obligation not to decide what it is people were actually saying to fit our whim. for instance "how can this be, I don't know a man =/= I'm a perpetual virgin, what gives?

And to keep Christ, not myself, at the center of the reading, not myself.

good idea.

 

[MamaZ]

Thou Shall not commit this or that is an order.. For the past tense, present tense or future tense.. It is a continuing shall..

So when the Angle came and told Mary she shall conceive a son.. That was not a suggestion . This was stating to her this is what was going to happen. She being a virgin at that time was confused.. How could she do this for she was not knowing a man. She was not even married yet but just betrothed..

 

[Thekla]

Thou Shall not commit this or that is an order.. For the past tense, present tense or future tense.. It is a continuing shall..

So when the Angle came and told Mary she shall conceive a son.. That was not a suggestion . This was stating to her this is what was going to happen. She being a virgin at that time was confused.. How could she do this for she was not knowing a man. She was not even married yet but just betrothed..

Especially if we treat this as a command/promise, we must consider the length of time between the commands/promises given in the OT and the fulfillment of the commands/promises. The promise of a child to Abraham took so long, for ex., that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to produce a child. A lenghty time span for the fulfillment of God's commands/promises repeats throughout the OT.

 

[prodromos]

interesting. So, you searched the matter, and came to a conclusion. I've done the same, and come to a different one. Of course, I have no doubt that you feel that your search was true, and mine was a product of bias and indoctrination, but here we stand. One of us is wrong.

Only one of you is mocking and ridiculing the conclusions of the other though. Isn't that usually the recourse of those who are unable to otherwise defend their arguments?

John

 

[Gwenyfur]

Speak Lovingly...

Most Holy Theotokos, Thank you for your intercessions to your Son for my daughter's health, and the strength and peace you gave me to survive the trial and worry.

 

[MamaZ]

Especially if we treat this as a command/promise, we must consider the length of time between the commands/promises given in the OT and the fulfillment of the commands/promises. The promise of a child to Abraham took so long, for ex., that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to produce a child. A lenghty time span for the fulfillment of God's commands/promises repeats throughout the OT.

Read why Sarah gave Hagar.. It was not for any promise..

 

[Thekla]

Read why Sarah gave Hagar.. It was not for any promise..

In chapter 12 of Genesis, God promises Abram that he will be the father of nations. In chapter 21 Isaac is born.

 

[MamaZ]

In chapter 12 of Genesis, God promises Abram that he will be the father of nations. In chapter 21 Isaac is born.

This has nothing to do with Hagar..

 

[MamaZ]

We have two covenants with Ishmael and Issac.. The bond woman and the free woman.. Read about it in Galatians.

 

[Thekla]

We have two covenants with Ishmael and Issac.. The bond woman and the free woman.. Read about it in Galatians.

If you would like to open a thread on Abraham and the promise, you could open one in Hagiography; the EO considers Abraham a Saint, so certainly, the thread could be introduced in this subforum.

However, the point remains that in the OT - so also in the Jewishcommunity, of which Mary was a member - it was known that God's command/promises to those He called, His "shalls", were not of immediate
outcome.

 

[Thekla]

This has nothing to do with Hagar..

I am showing the length of time elapsed between the promise to Abraham of a child/children and the conception then birth of the child.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Only one of you is mocking and ridiculing the conclusions of the other though. Isn't that usually the recourse of those who are unable to otherwise defend their arguments?

John

only one person is whining about it.

Isn't that usually the recourse of those who have absolutely nothing to offer other than recrimination?


save the righteous indignation for someone who might be impressed by it.

we're being told that "oh, you're biased" and "oh, you can't have seached this out, because you haven't come to the same conclusion." and "oh, it doesnt' matter if there are more than one way of looking at, it MY way MUST be true."

in short, we're basically being called (in not so many words) idiots. and I know Thekla is NOT intending that, but the whole mindset is "our studies are better than your studies, because it comes to the conclusion that supports what I believe"

what you call mocking, I call just not putting up with codswollop.


now her you go. I've linked it for you speed things up if it will make you feel better.

http://christianforums.com/report.php?p=49074850

 

[Philothei]

we're being told that "oh, you're biased" and "oh, you can't have seached this out, because you haven't come to the same conclusion." and "oh, it doesnt' matter if there are more than one way of looking at, it MY way MUST be true."

in short, we're basically being called (in not so many words) idiots. and I know Thekla is NOT intending that, but the whole mindset is "our studies are better than your studies, because it comes to the conclusion that supports what I believe"

We are both entitled to our perspectives and our "sources". But you are still "poisoning" the well of your bible by condemning "our studies" as you know the Bible was written in Aramaic and Greek and who could do a better job but Greeks? Christianity did come from the East....last time I checked... That is the source. I do not mean that the western Christianity is not valid it can be as long as it "drinks fromt the well" and the well is located in the East.

 

[Uphill Battle]

We are both entitled to our perspectives and our "sources". But you are still "poisoning" the well of your bible by condemning "our studies" as you know the Bible was written in Aramaic and Greek and who could do a better job but Greeks? Christianity did come from the East....last time I checked... That is the source. I do not mean that the western Christianity is not valid it can be as long as it "drinks fromt the well" and the well is located in the East.

which has exactly what to do with it? So, Christianity got it's start "in the east." why don't you be more specific? It started among the Jews.

this is irrelevant.

 

[Rick Otto]

It's the "Poison The Well Card"!:o

 

[Philothei]

Poisoning the well is irrelevant? Prove it. The Bible came from oral tradition. The same tradition that EV came from. You will have to do better than just claim it as irrelevant.

 

[Philothei]

So.....You can have Christianity not based on the Bible? Because if you claim to be bible based then you will have to admit the "source" and the source yeah it is Jewish and it did grew in the Hellenistic world... Those are historical facts or then Jesus was not a historical person a fully human with history, family and tradition, but rather fully Divine without any connection and ties. Your choice to believe the second if you wish