Speak lovingly of Mary

[Uphill Battle]

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.

whatever you say, Philo. I've explained as much as I'm willing. You will continue to be wrong as long as you want.

 

[Thekla]

It is impossible to substantiate anything more than a betrothal between Joseph and Mary in the Bible; the word typically translated as wife can also mean betrothed, widow, woman. Further, per Jewish law, the contract of betrothal is null if the woman becomes pregnant by another (and is likely why Joseph had to be ordered to keep the betrothal).

The NT is silent any a subsequent marriage.

For a further analysis of the terminology re: marriage and others considered evidence of a "marriage", see the "Brothers and Sisters" thread in this subforum.

 

[Philothei]

whatever you say, Philo. I've explained as much as I'm willing. You will continue to be wrong as long as you want.

working on assumptions rather than facts keeps this conversation "light"

 

[Uphill Battle]

working on assumptions rather than facts keeps it this conversation "light"

sure. Not having a clue what the other person is sayin is even lighter. you don't even have to worry about whether you got it... you just post what you think anyways.

I said I'm done, Philo.

Ciao.

 

[MrPolo]

BUT, they INSIST, it's dogma - the highest level of certainty.

It seems you earlier claimed the age of a teaching is irrelevant and here you are demanding explicit verbiage from the 1st century...

But if I may jump in and state the obvious...if you deny the Church has been entrusted with passing on divine revelation whether in Scripture or Tradition, then of course you will not likely see the truth of Marian dogmas. What then is the continued point of this discussion? Shouldn't it end with you saying, "I don't believe God to reveal truth through the Church, so I can't accept this" instead of you claiming Catholics or Orthodox to be "sinning" "liars."

 

[katholikos]

It seems you earlier claimed the age of a teaching is irrelevant and here you are demanding explicit verbiage from the 1st century... ..

Hoist on his own petard, eh?
Yes, where is the word "Trinity" in the 1st century.
Yes, where is an authoratative list of NT books in the 1st century.

The age of a doctrine IS irellevant. What is relevant, as John Henry Cardinal Newman pointed out, is that the legitimate developement of the doctrine can be traced back, and that the doctrine does not contradict earlier techings, as do, for example, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide - two doctrines that definitely contradict earlier doctrinal developements.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It seems you earlier claimed the age of a teaching is irrelevant and here you are demanding explicit verbiage from the 1st century...

1. The issue is credible confirmation. I think you'd agree that if Laura Bush stated in a known document that President Bush likes BBQ ribs, that MIGHT be given more credence than if she stated that St. Augustine liked BBQ ribs. In history, the closer the witness (in time and other senses) to the event, the more credence is often given to the testimony (bias aside).

2. The point was made that the Dogma of the the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been tuaght for 2000 years - a point that in no way has been shown to be true. My point was that that, per se, is not substantiation for the dogmatic truth of something. Yes, if it were, Gnosticism would be more dogmatically correct than the Assumption of Mary because the evidence of such is centuries older.

"I don't believe God to reveal truth through the Church, so I can't accept this" instead of you claiming Catholics or Orthodox to be "sinning" "liars."

If one wishes to take the position that a teacher is infallible (and thus unaccountable) because the self same so self claims, then I get your point and the RCC and LDS would be exempt from giving the substantiation that the Catholic Catechism requires. But the point here is that it IS substantiated, not that it is NOT substantiated.

Two more points flowing from that: the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not simply an embraced article of faith, it's dogma: the highest level of certainty, and if a teacher is right cuz he claims he is, then that rubric needs to be respected rather than ridiculed as it has by our Catholic friends.




.




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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?

.

You reject the MANY people who testify that all the claims about Joseph Smith are correct, but insist that if there are NONE, that makes it dogmatic fact. Odd, I think....

There are 4 that testified of the Transfiguation: two of whom were eye-witnesses, Peter and John. Both of whom wrote of it within one generation of the event. Now, can you give me two who had first hand knowledge of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and who wrote of it in documents we have? One? Or is it none? Again, dozens are insufficient evidence for Joseph Smith but how much substantiation is needed for a story about Mary to be documented as DOGMA - the highest level of certainty?

 

[Thekla]

Per your argument, the books of the NT have no greater authenticity than the LDS.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Very well. Let's see where we are after over 567 posts on this thread. We have firmly established the following:

1. Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is believed through Tradition to have had raven black hair and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Christian believe this to be an immutable, essential fact of her existence.
2. It is a regrettable thing that there is no historical substantiation for this reality, but because so many people have believed this for so long, it simply must be true.
3. Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is believed through Tradition to have never been married to Joseph, her betrothed, and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Christian believe this to be an immutable, essential fact of her existence.
4. It is a regrettable thing that there is no historical substantiation for this reality, but because so many people have believed this for so long, it simply must be true.
5. Despite the two regrettable verses (Matthew 1:24,25) concerning Joseph's (alleged) marriage to Mary, not to mention his presence with her and Jesus in subesquent events and five biblical passages stating that Jesus had brothers (named, no less) and sisters, it is a matter of the utmost certainy that none of this could possibly be true and that we must develop creative means of circumventing these statements which flatly contradict the truth the Mary was never really married to Joseph.
6. Nobody who has posted here has budged the slightest in their positions.

Which, if any, do you agree with and why? I submit that this is a fair and accurate summary of the results of this thread at the time of this posting.

 

[Kristos]

what is historical substantiation? Like a Doctors report? Or maybe an MRI? A birth certificate with Mary's name on it? Good luck with that one

 

[katholikos]

You reject the MANY people who testify that all the claims about Joseph Smith are correct...

..and you reject the MANY people who testify that all the claims we make are correct...

..is there some point to this line of reasoning? The things Joseph Smith has said CONTRADICT SCRIPTURES. Therefore the number of his witnesses is irellevant.

Catholic teachings on Mary, however, do NOT contradict scripture. (No offense Philothei.) Oh, they may contradict your interpretation of scripture, but thats all.

 

[Philothei]

1. The issue is credible confirmation. I think you'd agree that if Laura Bush stated in a known document that President Bush likes BBQ ribs, that MIGHT be given more credence than if she stated that St. Augustine liked BBQ ribs. In history, the closer the witness (in time and other senses) to the event, the more credence is often given to the testimony (bias aside).

It is not ONLY closer to the historical event ... it is also the times... that you are refering.. YOU THINK that they would have "jotted" it down and it would have survived those centuries? Also they could save it on disc those days? You are asking evidence about someone's private life in the age of no paper and pencil ...How does a food preference relates to that is beyond my understanding...lol...

2. The point was made that the Dogma of the the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been tuaght for 2000 years - a point that in no way has been shown to be true. My point was that that, per se, is not substantiation for the dogmatic truth of something. Yes, if it were, Gnosticism would be more dogmatically correct than the Assumption of Mary because the evidence of such is centuries older.

You toss it out as you please....as you are the one who made the argument about numbers and members ..... as of 10 millions of LDS are right and the almost billions are wrong... Now you toss this out too at will of course. What evidence? What assumption? Now we move to other bigger fish to fry here hm.......red herring anyone?
Gnosticism is as old as paganism that proves it right? Also Hinduism is OLD how this makes it right?

If one wishes to take the position that a teacher is infallible (and thus unaccountable) because the self same so self claims, then I get your point and the RCC and LDS would be exempt from giving the substantiation that the Catholic Catechism requires. But the point here is that it IS substantiated, not that it is NOT substantiated.

Two more points flowing from that: the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not simply an embraced article of faith, it's dogma: the highest level of certainty, and if a teacher is right cuz he claims he is, then that rubric needs to be respected rather than ridiculed as it has by our Catholic friends.

You lost me on that one.. I agree your LDS is messing up your construct... You totally lost me here...
One observation though: There is no One teacher about the Aeparthenos. There are many the whole Church agreeing with it, before you came along .... 1500 years now. And LDS is "one man show" with no eyewitness or historians to certify that JS did indeed had that apparition. Mary and Joseph were living in a community of believers that they were observed and watched ... out of that community came all oral and written tradition... I would rather believe the many over one... no comparison for me with the LDS... a self proclaimed prophet...

 

[Philothei]

Again, dozens are insufficient evidence for Joseph Smith but how much substantiation is needed for a story about Mary to be documented as DOGMA - the highest level of certainty?
__________________

there are no eyewitness to Joseph smith...only those who vouch for his character CJ...you are mistaken

 

[Philothei]

5.

Despite the two regrettable verses (Matthew 1:24,25) concerning Joseph's (alleged) marriage to Mary, not to mention his presence with her and Jesus in subesquent events and five biblical passages stating that Jesus had brothers (named, no less) and sisters, it is a matter of the utmost certainy that none of this could possibly be true and that we must develop creative means of circumventing these statements which flatly contradict the truth the Mary was never really married to Joseph.

and you do not take into account any of the errors in the English translations... or the Greek.... you go on and on... Those were cousins it has been said before... But if you are an English speakers I guess that truth is moot..

 

[Uphill Battle]

are you a recent move from RC to EO, Philo? I was under the impression it was the catholics who typically considered them cousins.. and the EO who considered them Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

 

[Philothei]

Ah... I wasn't paying too much attention here.. I am EO and craddle but not too much into apologetics for that one.. I think you are right ...my bad. I was brought up believing they were cousins though... RC and EO depending where you are brought up "share" some things in common Living in Athens for most of my life... with RC friends can do a "job" on ya

 

[katholikos]

are you a recent move from RC to EO, Philo? I was under the impression it was the catholics who typically considered them cousins.. and the EO who considered them Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

The Catholic Church has never defined whether they were cousins or half-brothers. Either position falls within Catholic orthodoxy. What we have defined is that the Blessed Virgin remained a virgin her whole life.

 

[Thekla]

are you a recent move from RC to EO, Philo? I was under the impression it was the catholics who typically considered them cousins.. and the EO who considered them Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

the relationship of the "adelphoi" to Christ is not dogmatic in the EO

 

[Uphill Battle]

Ah... I wasn't paying too much attention here.. I am EO and craddle but not too much into apologetics for that one.. I think you are right ...my bad. I was brought up believing they were cousins though... RC and EO depending where you are brought up "share" some things in common Living in Athens for most of my life... with RC friends can do a "job" on ya

no worries. like Kath says below, it doesn't matter... nor do I think it does. I was just curious.

The Catholic Church has never defined whether they were cousins or half-brothers. Either position falls within Catholic orthodoxy. What we have defined is that the Blessed Virgin remained a virgin her whole life.

no, I know it hasn't. That's why I said "typically."

I will say this though. I find it lacking in credibility, that the RC or EO can supposedly tell us with 100% certainty, that Mary was a perpetual virgin... but doesn't have a clue whether the "brothers" of Jesus were cousins, or half brothers.

I would think that given the nature of the Dogma, that would be something vital to preserve.