Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

4

. To make progress in this thread, you need to show that this DOGMA is true, because otherwise the RCC states it is a rumor, spreading it is a sin, and it is hurtful and thus not loving. I'll accept the same "bar" of substantiation that you'd accept from the Mormons about Smith, or from and all other noncatholics for their views not embraced by the RCC.

If the RC has already made that to a dogma there is no question that is nor a lie or a rumour and thus not a sin to say that Mary was Aeiparthenos.
I can say that the Protestants are making the dogma of the Holy Trinity up for it is not in the bible as well as the actual ressurection.. not the actual event in the bible as UB said ...He does not believe in it..

Would believeing in the Trinity be a "rumour" and lie since it is not direclty substantiated in the New Testament?

 

[Philothei]

California Josiah,

perhaps you've missed my question, so I'll repeat it here:
what evidence can you give to prove that the NT is authentic (ie, not rumored to be authentic) ?
__________________

Yeah once you came in...then... answer this one too then for us.... We are talking about "evidence" here are we???? Well, let us see how much you can afford?

Mr. Rick Otto affirmed to us that "faith" is indeed needed... what about you?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

that is another illogical assumption that he has failed into explaining how he agrees that the LDS are making a better argument that the Ever Virginity yet they are not false in their faith...doh....

1. I never posted that the LDS makes a better argument for Mary having had no sex. In fact, they don't even teach that. They have no official teaching regarding her sex life after Jesus was born.

2. I asked for 5 people who personally knew Mary who state in some verifiable way that Mary had no sex ever. I was told there are none. I asked for 5 people from the first century - even uncredable persons, even heretics, even people who never met Mary or any one who did, who state that Mary had no sex ever. I was told there are none. You may compare that to the many, many people who personally knew Joseph Smith (some relatives, associates and close friends) who wrote in documents existing to this day that all the claims and stories about Smith are true. It is irrefutable that the LDS have BETTER substantiation than the absolutely nothing that you have offered. Now, does that mean it's true? OF COURSE NOT - and I never suggested it did; what I said is YOU reject that level of substantiation as inadequate and yet you defind as PROOF a much, much lower level (in fact, a substantiation of nothing). Like of like saying a B.A. degree is insuffient education and then defending that a Kindergarden education is more than enough. The Catholic Catechism says if it's not substantiated, its a rumor, a sin, hurtful and NOT LOVING (the issue of this thread). That requires that you substantiate it as true. And, of course, to a level that you regard as reasonable for ALL (including Mormons and all other noncatholics). If a B.A. is required of one or its insuffient, then it's required of you. If 100 people who knew Smith and who write in documents known today is insufficent evidence, how is NO ONE in NOTHING enough to substantiate a DOGMA (a point of highest certainty) about Mary?




.

 

[katholikos]

...I asked for 5 people who personally knew Mary who state in some verifiable way that Mary had no sex ever.....

Thats insane. Show me five people who saw the "Transfiguration"; Show me five people who saw God etch the Ten Commandments into stone tablets.

What kind of whacky litmus test is that?

.

 

[Philothei]

JOsaih you 'set' the rules of these 5 people and the date... too... how funny you right the rules of the game so you can win... Imagine that!
Well, the earliest doc I could find was that of Epiphanius and Origen who lived closer to the time you are looking for... I will repeat what I already told you belfore... That it can take decades for scholars to find information on those historians or christian writers who talk about that issue... The Protoevangelion is yet another source of the same information and that makes it 3 I am sure others can come up with more... in time.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to bring this information out to this thread. If it was not for you maybe we would not have searched into this issue and truth would not have come out. In God's mind who him alone knows what is truth and what is not... lays the ultimate judgment.


We RC and EO trust in his judgment that works through the conscience of His Church and its decisions through its councils (the ones that the whole body of the church participated) you do not... that is your choice...

Also I am wondering why you are looking of those 5 people since you believe in SS alone any ways... What is to you if you eventually find those 5? You will accept it as truth? I doubt it..... Motives matter me thinks ...May God have mercy on us all...

Epiphanius of Salamis:"... the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit" (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). ..."And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Origen: ...And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]). [A.D. 248], Hilary of Poitiers [A.D. 354],

Didymus the Blind: "It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

http://davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm


Enjoy

 

[Philothei]

Thats insane. Show me five people who saw the "Transfiguration"; Show me five people who saw God etch the Ten Commandments into stone tablets.

What kind of whacky litmus test is that?

.

That is the whole point

and the list goes on ...Show me five people who saw the angel coming to Mary .... etc.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah once you came in...then... answer this one too then for us.... We are talking about "evidence" here are we???? Well, let us see how much you can afford?

Mr. Rick Otto affirmed to us that "faith" is indeed needed... what about you?

Yes, but that wasn't a wild card that endorses everything tradition encompasses. It was simply a definition of the common ground of scripture as a body of truth we can both reference, not the approval of traditional beliefs & practices that don't have scriptural evidence of being true.
Josiah has provided this evidence which you would do well to acknowledge & address rather than sidestep & sidetrack with beside-the-point distractions which can well be addressed after you face the issue, if in fact you ever will.
Josiah's position begins & ends with the scriptures he cited & the points they present as reasons for his position. That constitutes "evidence" from a source we both accept on faith - scripture.

All we've seen given as justification is evidence of existence of these traditions, not scriptural evidence of them being true.
The best we're offered is how close the sources of these traditions were to a couple of the apostles, not all of whom we've heard from. And often enough in scripture itself we see how some of the apostles themselves were dense toward & doubtful of what Jesus was trying to teach them.

Would believeing in the Trinity be a "rumour" and lie since it is not direclty substantiated in the New Testament?

It is directly substantiated, just not given explicit verbal description per se, but the Trinity is given explicit circumstantial description at Jesus' baptism at least. The 3 distinct persons of the Godhead are clearly illustrated as seperately present, unified in active purpose.

So don't be distracted... the Trinity isn't a rumor, & it is directly substantiated in the NT.

 

[Philothei]

So don't be distracted

Mr. Otto I am not at all distracted neither I needed your guidance for I have St. Basil and others where to draw "water" from my education on the Holy Trinity that one was for you....that unfortunately you do not have a well to draw from... Like the ressurection that too is "not evidenced" directly in bible as there is no one "present" at the event... Given we have historians attesting to that ... still if you go SS you cannot prove it...

 

[Philothei]

Yes, but that wasn't a wild card that endorses everything tradition encompasses. It was simply a definition of the common ground of scripture as a body of truth we can both reference, not the approval of traditional beliefs & practices that don't have scriptural evidence of being true.

Oh... what was it then? Do you accept the Bible as written by fallable men or not? Inspired by God? Then where it says that ONLY those inspired by God were the Apostles ONLY? Where in the Bible it says that ONLY the Bible is inspired? I know about not adding anything else but it does not say anything about that ONLY what is in the bible is valid.

Josiah has provided this evidence which you would do well to acknowledge & address rather than sidestep & sidetrack with beside-the-point distractions which can well be addressed after you face the issue, if in fact you ever will.

Josiah is providing a straw man that he cannot prove. He insists that the LDS are valid as a faith because they have 5 wittnesses to JS. He though contrtadicted himself as he said that they are false as a faith and he does not believe them.. .That is an illogical premise. If he stands by his premise then the conclusion is that they are true according to his own argement.

Josiah's position begins & ends with the scriptures he cited & the points they present as reasons for his position. That constitutes "evidence" from a source we both accept on faith - scripture.

No, he does not use scripture he wants 5 people that support the Aeparthenos case. He said nothing about scripture. He never presented any scripture that point to Theotokos "having relations with Joseph" (Lord have mercy on us) He cannot prove it through scripture that SHE DID....or we would know about it...

All we've seen given as justification is evidence of existence of these traditions, not scriptural evidence of them being true.

You cannot prove the opposite so what it the point?

The best we're offered is how close the sources of these traditions were to a couple of the apostles, not all of whom we've heard from. And often enough in scripture itself we see how some of the apostles themselves were dense toward & doubtful of what Jesus was trying to teach them.

Calling the Apostles dense in the their understanding is not the best of descriptions but I would not go into that... Rahter I would agree that they were not God they were human and prone to human error. The collective mind of the Apostolic writings though agree and if I were a SS would look for similarities in the Bible and agreement rather than "insist" in the differences and disjointness of the message. Two similar points make a stronger case against one... right? Thus about the Virginity of Mary I do not see any two objections to her perpetual virginity. Actually I see more of a respectful notion and affection towards Mary from her environment in the scripture by her peers and by Christ and his disciples esp. entrusted by her son to John. Like Alysia (not sure about her name...) said before in this thread the historical and cultural factor does point that Theotokos would have chosen a self imposed celibacy based on who she was and her personality....She grew up in the temple as a "dedicated" child that is another factor... but I will end here ... I know that I will not convience you but at least for those who are reading this thread I am sure it is of great value...

 

[Uphill Battle]

4

If the RC has already made that to a dogma there is no question that is nor a lie or a rumour and thus not a sin to say that Mary was Aeiparthenos.

so, basically, what Josiah has said is true. You believe it, because they said it. Evidence is irrelevant, if someone in your (or their, as seeing you are not RC, but you happen to agree with them on this point) says it's true.

that is the circular self-authenticating that CJ has been pointing out all along on these forums. you MAY be the first to openly admit it though.

I can say that the Protestants are making the dogma of the Holy Trinity up for it is not in the bible

poppycock. the Trinity is evidenced in scripture.

as well as the actual ressurection.. not the actual event in the bible as UB said ...He does not believe in it..

sure I do. I said I "deny the ressurection NEVER happened." It was a play on words based on a gramatical error in your earlier post.

Would believeing in the Trinity be a "rumour" and lie since it is not direclty substantiated in the New Testament?

no... because you are wrong, it is substatiated in scripture.

Mr. Otto I am not at all distracted neither I needed your guidance for I have St. Basil and others where to draw "water" from my education on the Holy Trinity that one was for you....that unfortunately you do not have a well to draw from... Like the ressurection that too is "not evidenced" directly in bible as there is no one "present" at the event... Given we have historians attesting to that ... still if you go SS you cannot prove it...

pish posh.

Sola Scriptura doesn't mean we check our thinking capabilities at the door.

I've already laid it out for you. Here it is again.

Evidece exists that Christ died on the cross. Substatiated in the pages of the bible.

Evidence exists that Christ was seen walking around after he was dead. Substatiated in the pages of the bible.

now, usually, 1+1=2. I don't think I need to figure out for you whether or not the ressurection happened. He was dead... then alive.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Josiah is providing a straw man that he cannot prove. He insists that the LDS are valid

no, he did not. you are just not understanding what it is he is saying. He has not ONCE stated that LDS is valid faith... he states that they do a better job of providing SOME evidence towards what they claim, than the RC does regarding some of it's Domgas. That is all he was saying.

any scripture that point to Theotokos "having relations with Joseph" (Lord have mercy on us) He cannot prove it through scripture that SHE DID....or we would know about it...

did all the other married couples in the bible, have relations with each other? probably... you usually don't have to have text detail the NORMAL... you have to provide evidence to the EXCEPTION.

for instance... you don't have to have evidence of people who couldn't walk on water. you'd just safely assume that nobody can, based on the norm. evidence must be provided when this is NOT the case, as in the case of Christ... and for the barest of moments, Peter.

You cannot prove the opposite so what it the point?

the the point is your church, and the RC, hold this as absolute truth. It would damage the faith of CJ, Otto, nor me not one jot if we were wrong on the matter.

however, (more in the case of the RC) it would be devestating if it were untrue. they hold it as NECCESSARY belief.

 

[Philothei]

sure I do. I said I "deny the ressurection NEVER happened." It was a play on words based on a gramatical error in your earlier post.

Playing with my grammar will get you somewhere UB...lol... sure.. But do not bother with the real issue..and not answering any questions either...

 

[Philothei]

did all the other married couples in the bible, have relations with each other? probably... you usually don't have to have text detail the NORMAL... you have to provide evidence to the EXCEPTION.

for instance... you don't have to have evidence of people who couldn't walk on water. you'd just safely assume that nobody can, based on the norm. evidence must be provided when this is NOT the case, as in the case of Christ... and for the barest of moments, Peter.

UB it says they were betrothled... It does not even mentions their marriage... what are you talking about? The word "marriage" is not mentioned...only the intention is there where the angel says "do not be afraid to take Mary as your bride" .... it never mentions marriage...dear...

 

[Philothei]

poppycock. the Trinity is evidenced in scripture.

by assumption ONLY or all SS would believe in it and they do not... based on the fact it is not clearly substantiated.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Playing with my grammar will get you somewhere UB...lol... sure.. But do not bother with the real issue..and not answering any questions either...

what questions from you to ME did I overlook? I don't answer for other people all that often, so if I didn't answer a question to CJ, that's not my problem but his, technically.

UB it says they were betrothled... It does not even mentions their marriage... what are you talking about? The word "marriage" is not mentioned...only the intention is there where the angel says "do not be afraid to take Mary as your bride" .... it never mentions marriage...dear...

there's more of that thinking required in this passage.


Betrothed.
Joseph troubled about it, and thinking of putting her away quietly.
Angel visiting, saying, hey, don't worry about it, proceed as planned.
Joseph taking her in to her house as his "woman." (direct translation, I believe.)
now who could EVER think that they got married! hmm!

are you suggesting that Joseph got a message from the angel saying, go ahead, take her as you bride

and Joseph said... Nah.

 

[Uphill Battle]

by assumption ONLY or all SS would believe in it and they do not... based on the fact it is not clearly substantiated.

don't go shifting the goalposts.

we don't ask for CLEAR substatiation. We ask for ANY at all.

 

[Philothei]

no, he did not. you are just not understanding what it is he is saying. He has not ONCE stated that LDS is valid faith... he states that they do a better job of providing SOME evidence towards what they claim, than the RC does regarding some of it's Domgas. That is all he was saying

.... how can I be so stupid? While the rest of us understand it fine

According to this paradigm the LDS are right faith...it is his construct and him denying it is an illogical fallacy... period.

 

[katholikos]

Yes, but that wasn't a wild card that endorses everything tradition encompasses. It was simply a definition of the common ground of scripture as a body of truth we can both reference, not the approval of traditional beliefs & practices that don't have scriptural evidence of being true......

That that opinion itself is based on a tradtion: A 500-year-old tradtion that stems from the first protestants, which itself is a tradition of men that nullifies the word of God.

 

[Philothei]

don't go shifting the goalposts.

we don't ask for CLEAR substatiation. We ask for ANY at all.

that is not an answer... but a bypass.....

You either have it or not.. and from the looks of it.. .I can declare that all the evidence scattered around the Bible can be called an accidental... and leave it at that... The docrine of the Holy Trinity is a later development for sure. The first Christians had no idea about it...Neither were they concerned about it... it was later on when things got confusing and people started saying different things that the fathers sat down to figure it out.... trust me on this.

 

[Uphill Battle]

.... how can I be so stupid? While the rest of us understand it fine

According to this paradigm the LDS are right faith...it is his construct and him denying it is an illogical fallacy... period.

no. You are wrong. But I will spend no further effor trying to clarify it for you.