Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla said:

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

Click to expand...

again, that is why I said "typically."

okay whatever you guys... cut it out....LOL... In Greek it says exadelfoi... that is cousins now it can mean also step brothers ... I have not looked into the hellenistic I am reading it from modern Greek translation...

BTW ....UB my daughter loves your avatar..

Philothei said:

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

Click to expand...

People who KNEW him and WROTE their testimonies that the claims were correct. That's evidence, maybe biased, maybe not suffient - but at least something. I asked if you had even ONE person who knew Mary and who wrote that Mary was a PERPETUAL Virgin - even an unreliable person, even a heretic, but it was noted there's not even one. Credible or not.

It seems to ME what you have chosen to do, as a pure article of faith (which, of course, I respect) is to believe that your specific denomination is dogmatically right about this because you choose to believe that it is. Okay. I "get" that. It's the same rubric the Mormon uses. But then you have no substantiation, you are simply choosing to believe that it's dogmatically true to the highest level of certainty - without any evidence to support such. If that's okay with you, that's fine with me, but the issue here is LOVE for Mary - and that involves TRUTH, not simply who or what you choose to blindly accept, regardless of evidence. Let me use this flawed illustration: Let's say you and I are classmates in the 5th grade. We barely know each other. A classmate (whom I choose to accept is infallible in all he says) states - as dogma - that you kissed the new student in class. He didn't see it, he actually has no evidence of it at all, but it he just knows that you did - to the highest level of certainty. Since I regard that source as infallible (and thus unaccountable) then it MUST be true that you did - I need no evidence. So I tell everyone at school that you kissed the new student: this as a dogmatic statement of FACT of the highest order and nature - as certain as the sun shines. Let's set aside, for a moment, whether you did or not (since I regard my source as UNABLE to be wrong - it is a moot question for me). Is it LOVING and respectful for me to tell the whole world, as dogma, that you did irrespective of any evidence?

You asked earlier if evidence matters in other stories and reports. Let's take one. Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants all teach that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. That's not dogma (or even doctrine) for any of us, thus a lesser "bar" but it IS something we accept, teach and confess so of a similar nature (albeit not of the extremely personal and intimate nature as Mary's sex life - void of the huge potentiality for embarrassment and pain). A report about a person.
Do I accept this BECAUSE my denomination, The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - says it's true? Actually, that has nothing to do with it. We have two good substantiations for this (not proof - but then I didn't ask for proof). One comes from Luke. There's no evidence that Luke knew Jesus or Joseph, and while it is traditional that he knew Mary, we have no evidence of that - he simply says he has "carefully investigated" the matter AND he is a contemporary who could have known people who knew about this first-hand (even if he did not). He says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Not 100% solid, I agree, but a contemporary written report by someone who seems credible and specifically states it. We have another, also from 45-70 AD, from Matthew. Matthew was an Apostle and lived, worked and studied with Jesus. It's also likely that he knew Mary. He also writes that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He would have even higher credence than Luke, and also writes fairly contermporarily of this and could have known first-hand sources (like Jesus for sure, Mary quite likely). Thus, we have two written, quite to very credible sources of substantiation and evidence. Not proof, I realize, but solid substantiation. All this EVEN IF the infallibllity of Scripture is ignored - just from a purely historic aspect. Even Jews and secular atheists generally conceed that Jesus was very likely born in Bethlehem. (This isn't dogma, BTW). I think us sharing that about Jesus - the town of His birth - has substantiation and is not potentially hurtful to Him. Now, let's compare that to the DOGMA of Mary never had sex. What do we have (even if not divine Scripture) that clearly confirms this story or report? From ANYONE who knew Mary? No. Who knew Jesus or Joseph? No. Who was so much as alive or in Bethlehem within 50 years either way of His birth? No. I agree that we have a statement from over 200 years later, by someone who couldn't know this as a primary source (or secondary or.....), and who gives NO indication of how he came to this "information." Just "she was a perpetual virgin." Is this the type of evidence you generally accept for DOGMA? If Obama said that McCain never was a prisoner of war but lived all those years in an Italian Villa - NO ONE so much as mentioned that before, Obama has no way of knowing that, there is no evidence of such, but it's just so - dogmatically? Is that how you generally evaluate dogmatic statements of FACT? Do you think Obama would be LOVING (the issue of this thread) to state, dogmatically, that McCain lived out those years in supreme luxury in Italty? OR would you think it good to ask Obama for SOMETHING to confirm his absolute statement of fact before you began spreading everywhere that McCain was never a prisoner of war but rather the guest of high luxury at a villa in Italy?






.

Uphill Battle said:

...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.....

Click to expand...

I don't know why. The Church has also defined that God created everything out of nothing, yet the Church has not defined whether the six-day creation story is literal, or whether the world has existed for millions of years. Does that mean the Church's teaching that God created everything out of nothing also lacks credibility with you? ...just because we haven't defined what the "six days" means?

Philothei said:

BTW ....UB my daughter loves your avatar..

Click to expand...

cool. I may not speak about my avatar. If i stated the reason behind the avatar, I'd likely LOSE my avatar.

shhh....

katholikos said:

I don't know why. The Church has also defined that God created everything out of nothing, yet the Church has not defined whether the six-day creation story is literal, or whether the world has existed for millions of years. Does that mean the Church's teaching that God created everything out of nothing also lacks credibility with you? ...just because we haven't defined what the "six days" means?

Click to expand...

no. It does not. Because the bible states that God created everything from nothing.

where it loses it's credibility with me is when it claims to know all truth, everything important... but doesn't know that.

surely it would come up. Jesus would know that it would, wouldn't he? It would be a major bone of contention. Yet, the church that is supposed to teach and mediate all things, hasn't a clue.

I'm taking it your one of those "millions of years" guys.

C'mon... UB certain things the Church is moot because that would mean to "narrow" God's unlimited sovereignty (do not make fun of my spelling please....) over the creation... God is unlimited in his knowledge we are not.. so if we resort to kataphatically say of who God is... we are in danger of defyning a God who is unlimited also if we become too apophatic and do not take into account God's revelation....we can become agnostic, not knowing anything about God.

That is the reason the Church is slow to respond... When it comes to God's mystery 2,000 years are probably a day There are certain things that cannot the Church in its wisdom will not interpret i.e. the Revelation of John... it is not read in our Church.

Uphill Battle said:

....where it loses it's credibility with me is when it claims to know all truth, everything important.......

Click to expand...

Ahhh, but this too is in the Bible. It is a promise of Christ to those he ordained as teachers and apostles:

John 16:13
"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth;

Galations 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I. but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
2. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

cool. I may not speak about my avatar. If i stated the reason behind the avatar, I'd likely LOSE my avatar.

shhh....

Click to expand...

I know nothing!!!


Peace

Uphill Battle said:

[/color][/b]s

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.

Click to expand...

Okay I'm a few pages behind so if someone has already addressed this please forgive.


Not that I don't disagree with Christ being resurected or that it is mentioned in the Bible.

The argument is to provide conclusive proof. Faith is not based on conclusive proof.

For one to accept what is written in the Bible about the resurrection and the Trinity(and other things) as proof one must have faith. Faith that the Bible is the Word of God.( Yes i do agree that it;s the Word of God.)

Take out the belive that the Bible is the Word of God and then one is left with pure intellectual exercise. One which requires analytical and quantative proof.

This is what is being asked by CJ.

We have provided ecf''s quotes and biblical verses to substantiate our faith. But if one does not have faith in this, then one requires proof and faith is not based on proof.

See the fallacy??

Peace

lionroar0 said:

I know nothing!!!


Peace

Click to expand...

me too i am sworn to secrecy

see now you are judging evidence from our times... not how they percieved hisroricity and evidence back then.... According to your thinking all the things I listed have to be examined and evaluated according to strict "modern time" era standards... And that would be impossible. You can scrutinize as much you can but you will not find that easy any physical evidence for any of these claims...

Click to expand...

The standard has always been as established in scripture - at least two witnesses must testify to bring the matter before a judge.
De 19:15 - Show Context One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. De 17:6 - Show Context At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question though... Why do you think that it so "degrating" for Theotokos to be told she lived a virgin life? I am cuirous to find out...

Click to expand...

Because it is a topic of intimately private issue & substance of which none is our need or responsibility to attend, leastwise in any great detail out of respect for privacy beside the obvious fact that there are loftier, meatier spiritual issues to attend in the oursuit of Christian ideals as described in the two greatest commandments.

So for the ressurection of Christ of the time of the very actual event we have two witnesses Mr. Otton or at the time the Angle coming to Mary to announce her the incarnation?

was there a guard posted?

Matt27:59: And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60: And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
61: And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
62: Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
63: Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64: Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
65: Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
66: So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

Matt 28: 1: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2: And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3: His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5: And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6: He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7: And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8: And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9: And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10: Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11: Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12: And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13: Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14: And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15: So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

Well, if you're gonna believe the scripture, there's your witnesses including Himself.

Rick Otto said:

The standard has always been as established in scripture - at least two witnesses must testify to bring the matter before a judge.
De 19:15 - Show Context One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. De 17:6 - Show Context At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.


Because it is a topic of intimately private issue & substance of which none is our need or responsibility to attend, leastwise in any great detail out of respect for privacy beside the obvious fact that there are loftier, meatier spiritual issues to attend in the oursuit of Christian ideals as described in the two greatest commandments.

Click to expand...

just to mention, we till have not established the authenticity of the NT per the standards demanded in this thread -- good thing you cited the OT