Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

whoops - no authentification for the Annunciation, either !

 

[Brennin]

IMHO, speaking "lovingly" includes speaking respectfully.
And respectfully means truthfully.


IMHO, dogmatically insisting on unsubstantiated, late rumors lacks truth, respect or love. In spite of the sincere intention.


Someone MAY desire to flatter me by telling others that I have a Ph.D. from Harvard. I don't. Thus, such doesn't flatter me, it embarrass me and is disrespectful to the truth (I have a B.S - no jokes please - from the University of California). You INTENTION may be good, but the result is not. My mommie taught me to always ask, "Is it true and is it helpful?" She told me to not spread rumors - even well intentioned ones. And I try not to do that - especially about one whom I love, adore and hold in highest esteem, such as Our Blessed Lady.


That's MY perspective, anyway....


Pax


- Josiah

What he said.

Luke 11:27-28

27 While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!’ 28But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!’


There is no room for 'Mariodoulia' in Christianity.

 

[Philothei]

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.

Since we do not know if Mary and Joseph had sexual relations in the bible and we cannot prove either.. then it is easy to assume it can be either or... So, I cannot understand why would that be a "prying" into Mary's and Joseph's private life when so many other couples in the bible (i.e. the song of songs, the parents of Mary having trouble concieving etc what about privacy issues here ?) had their relations 'exposed'... while we the Christians who lived in those days they are told now ....by the Proterstant reformation followers who came about in 1,500 AD and their leaders did testify to the virginity of Mary (Luther, Calvin, Zwigli etc) question as to WHY we uphod that Tradition....I find it obsurd, silly and out of place.

Ever Virginity is as old as the Apostolic times and if it was such a "important" and "pressing" issue the Church (at least the EO) would have already re-evaluated it... Thus I do not see any reason for alarm.

The only alarm I see is in your mind as you deny to see that you have true challenges coming your way... and real issues regarding dogmas that are not proved in the Bible and they actually have greater importance such as the Ressurection and the Trinity...

The ever-virginity of Theotokos is not only a dogma that points to her private life but a guide post of her devotion, self-sacrifice, and pardigm that people can rise above their passions and serve as great examples of piety and witness. Joseph being a much older man out of respect for Theotokos is said to remain also a celibant. I am not afraid or intimidated to proclaim that her higher standards should be putting us to shame to think that by her purity and devotion some would think that we violate her rights to her privacy....it almost makes me laugh... when I think of how our monastics are so humble in their vows of their own celibacy. Theotokos life is an open book to us as God would not have given her that task if she was not an extraordinary individual ...

May our Ever Virgin Theotokos intercede for us Amen.

As far as loving our God and neighbour mr. OTTO Christ who watches over the whole world is aware of those who do and those who do not... I do not think we need to "watch out" for finding for Him who is doing his Will and who is not... This is not our job.... We are here to take care of our salvation and look over our own "hatch back" as my mother always says...

 

[Philothei]

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.

Mr. Rick Otto,
where in these verses it recalls an actual wintess of the event itself??? NONE...

they all 'refer" to have seen Christ risen etc...

 

[Philothei]

I believe the scripture... But what Mr. California Josaih wanted... as far as eyewittness are not there... in the Bible... I believe since I believe the wintneses who saw Christ after the event risen... But that was not the point. My point is that not all events in the Bible are wintessed get it? We believe because we believe those who tell us the narration the story of Jesus.. We believ Mary be ever virgin because others tells us that...

 

[Thekla]

What he said.

Luke 11:27-28

27 While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!’ 28But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!’


There is no room for 'Mariodoulia' in Christianity.

Hi, Brennin
do you recall the previous discussions on the word menoume/menounge and the variations of definition of the English word rather ?

And of course you do not mean to imply that Mary heard the word of God delivered by Gabriel and then did not keep it ...

 

[hogndog]

I've been real busy tonight, Phew!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gaFFMKQYRc&feature=related

FWIW I am going to add a few things - archeologists wanted to study the historical and accurate content of the LDS' claims from Mr Smith regarding the 'cities and towns' he named and claimed.

But, as no surpirse - there was nothing.

Not one stone - not one iota of proof of any person he named or city and town.
He completely fabricated the historical stories.

There is a video somewhere on that....on youtube...?
Or some other type video that shows the experts explain the pains they took looking for these places which do not exist.

I dont understand how anyone can compare historical proof to a fabricated story.
Doesnt work with me....no matter how much Smith tried to imitate the historical Church in order to convert ppl, still doesnt make them correct.
But when proof is on the side of the claim - it really does bring credibility to the table.




Well, I said it before, will say it again...
The gate the Lord entered thru - would remain shut and NO man can enter where the Lord has entered thru.

He wasn't really talking about a gate.
He was hiding the Virgin Mary His Mother from satan so she would be able to fulfill her role in bringing us the Savior.

For what purpose would God preserve a gate?
But not His own Flesh and Blood in which He entered life with us?
THE OT was a prefigure of His life, which included His Mother.

HOW did He enter into life to be our Savior?
Thru His Mother.

Can a man enter where He has entered?
NO.

 

[Philothei]

i love this can i keep it i my siggy?....I do this every single night... for one hour.....at least...

Your video was so funny ... i am wondering how there is still this church standing ....
I had Mormons and Mary Eddie Baker as my field ed in my sociology of religion class... in college. They are truly lots of fun, we had a blast leaning about them.
I guess non of us believers in the Ever Virginity has been stoned or striken to death by God yet.... so thus far we are safe...
Thanks Hogndog

 

[Uphill Battle]

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;

yes, I know. Which merely discredits your claims. Clearly, no Church has ALL truth, in that they do not know every little thing. I.E, brothers or coursins, or literal days, or millions of years, as you yourself have said. If Jesus was promising the RCC (as you so claim) all truth... where did it go? Why don't you know these things? I know you'll limit the "all" to match "what we teach."

or perhaps... Jesus meant something else. Or someone else. But claiming all truth and knowledge, when it is clear you don't have it... is foolish.

Well, I said it before, will say it again...
The gate the Lord entered thru - would remain shut and NO man can enter where the Lord has entered thru.

He wasn't really talking about a gate.
He was hiding the Virgin Mary His Mother from satan so she would be able to fulfill her role in bringing us the Savior.

For what purpose would God preserve a gate?
But not His own Flesh and Blood in which He entered life with us?
THE OT was a prefigure of His life, which included His Mother.

HOW did He enter into life to be our Savior?
Thru His Mother.

Can a man enter where He has entered?
NO.

you're repeating what has already been refuted. Yes, I know you don't accept the refutation, and more than we accept that he was speaking about Mary's womb in this passage.

but repeating it will get us absolutely nowhere.

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.

agreed... and I don't ask for conclusive proof. myself, I ask for ANY mention of it, in a source that we ALL accept (scripture.) PV, IC, Assumption.... not one iota exists in scripture regarding these. Some passages are forwarded regarding it, but if you're honest, they are incomprehensible as evidence to the dogma, if the dogma is not already believed in the first place. It reeks of prooftexting, finding any words that match what is already believed.

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.)

yes, this is true. We must accept the things in the bible on a matter of faith. I haven't seen anyone argue against this.

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

I also see the false comparison. I have no idea how the thread got on to the silliness that the ressurection isn't substatiated by scripture. It's one of the clearest things you can find in the gospels.

but "this is in the bible, and I have faith that it is true"
is different than "I have faith in this. There is no scripture that SAYS it, but this looks like it fits, so that's what it means."
(yes, I'm aware you don't believe that is what is done.)

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

demands of one person, perhaps.

myself, I don't think it wise to quibble about the authenticity of a source that we both agree is true... can't we have some agreement without shin-kicking?

all parties in this thread agree on the validity of scripture. Where the communication breaks down, is where the one side doesn't believe that it is neccessary to believe things outside of scripture, and the other forwarding that scripture is merely an incomplete record.

lets not shatter the one small piece of common ground that we have.

 

[MrPolo]

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

The Church is not right because She claims She is anymore than Paul is right "because" He says so. The Church can only give what She is given. We understand you don't believe that and have, with great effort, decried the Church on this forum. We also understand you do not accept doctrinal development.

 

[Philothei]

all parties in this thread agree on the validity of scripture. Where the communication breaks down, is where the one side doesn't believe that it is neccessary to believe things outside of scripture, and the other forwarding that scripture is merely an incomplete record.

But it is an incomplete record even by scholarly standards. Historically speaking any record that is so old is bount to be inconsistant and incomplete. We are not Mulsims to believe that somehow the "human hand" did not touch it...

We cannot say that our whole belief system does not boil down to that one leap of faith. You might not "lke" to be reminded of it... but it all boils down to faith as God's revelation as a historical event is you either accept it all or you do not.

HOw does this relate to CJ LDS paradigm? Why measuring it to scripture is soooo much different? Making analogies that are not of equal measures such as LDS to me is insulting to the issue we discuss.

But making analogies to that of the ressurection or other events IN OUR BIBLE can really makes us think what is that Bible... What is provided for us and to even speculate why some truths are not so prominent while others are... Are we told yet in the Bible that ALL truths are to be found ONLY there? NO it is not said, thus why we insist that whatever exists outside of those writings are necessarily looked upon suspision esp. now 2,000 years after those events/issues took place and were thoroughly discussed and there was a body called the Church that established them.

Again if they were not true the same body of believers would have rejected them....

The same way we put our trust on the Biblical writting be valid... we are to put trust in the community of those faithful who put together the most sacred book of all times, we should also give them the same credit for what they said about Mary and her Ever-Virginity.

You cannot accept the 'fruits' (the bible) of those Fathers and reject their writtings...it is like you trust them as far as compiling the canon but mistrust them for the rest of their writtings. It is illogical and God made us rational beings.

 

[MrPolo]

The age of a doctrine IS irellevant.

Ironically, the Church's opponents will not accept other teachings of the very same succession of authorities who determined the New Testament canon.

 

[MrPolo]

You cannot accept the 'fruits' (the bible) of those Fathers and reject their writtings...it is like you trust them as far as compiling the canon but mistrust them for the rest of their writtings. It is illogical and God made us rational beings.

Wow I just said the exact same thing as you 1 minute apart.

 

[Thekla]

demands of one person, perhaps.

myself, I don't think it wise to quibble about the authenticity of a source that we both agree is true... can't we have some agreement without shin-kicking?

all parties in this thread agree on the validity of scripture. Where the communication breaks down, is where the one side doesn't believe that it is neccessary to believe things outside of scripture, and the other forwarding that scripture is merely an incomplete record.

lets not shatter the one small piece of common ground that we have.

my intention is neither shin-kicking nor shattering; but please understand that we have a variance in interpretation, and it would be at least fair to:
1. require the same degree of authentication from both sides per the basis of acceptance (we authenticate scripture through Tradition - what is the standard for your authentication and can this standard be 'proven' since the charge is that we must)
2. rather than belittling a difference in interpretation, make an effort to understand (though not agree) rather than dismiss as clearly absent.
3. as there is a difference of interpretation, the charge that the ever-virginity is entirely "extra-scriptural" is a matter of selecting your tradition over ours - thats fine, but should be recognised for what it is -- a different tradition.
4. it may be that our view on scripture itself is at variance; we attest that scripture is a record of revelation (not revelation itself) and is not exhaustive (which is scriptural).

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't know, Thekla... the problem with that is I could say


hmmm. It says in the bible that Jesus said he is the true vine. Therefore, I believe it to be true that Jesus had leafy appendages. He required frequent pruning.

what? you don't believe so? Well... that's just a different interpretation, MY tradition dictates that you must take every word literally. That's why someone else is typing this, I don't have eyes, or hands.

you know what I mean?


let me be very clear on something. I think, because of the debate that rages back and forth between the "sides" that we completely and totally disvalue the traditions, or history, or teachings of every other church.

this is not true. I believe the same thing regarding the canonization of scripture, as do the Catholics, for the most part. I just don't believe that the church in the early centuries, resembles closely what the Catholic church is today, nor the EO.. nor any denomination, really.

the RC has much good in it. So to, the EO. more than a great number of protestant denominations. I am merely "protestant" because I am neither EO, or RC (or any other "demomination" that says it's neither a denomination or protestant.) I just wholeheartedly reject the claims of "we were the first, the only, and the only ones to get it right from word Go." Evidence points to the contrary.

so the whole argument "you don't trust the ECF's, but you trust the bible" is invalid. firstly, I trust the bible because the Church maintained it, for the most part, and because those scriptures were already in use. I don't distrust the ECF's per se... I distrust the way it is frequently used. Nor, given the contradictions you will find among the ECF's, do I trust them completely either. There is a reason that they were not part of the Canon. God wouldn't let his word be sundered. The problem with the use of the ECFs as neccessarily authoritative, is that the use usually amounts to posting a snippet that supposedly confirms a viewpoint, context is rarely even remotely provided, nor is it acknowledged that other ECF's have not maintained the same thought.

I can think of at least ONE ECF that was condemned for heresies... yet they quote his other bits as authoritative, because it fits with what they believe.

so, what it boils down to, is that yes, I believe that the Catholic church is "the church" and yes, I believe that the EO is "the church" but neither is THE church... because they don't match up to the claims that they forward.

end longwinded post.

 

[Thekla]

Of course some of the writings of the ECFs are not 'included' - people are not authoratative, Christ is. You seriously don't think heretical teaching would be acceptable because someone one "likes" teaches it !

But it does still boil down -- both sides -- to tradition.
All I am asking is that if we are to defend the "integrity and authenticity" of our tradition, that those questioning ours apply the same standard to their own. So my request is not about agreement, but fairness.

 

[Uphill Battle]

fair enough.

 

[bbbbbbb]

5.

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..

Point well taken. If you are an English speaker using any and all known English translations of the Bible, this is what it clearly means. If you are a Greek reader and translator this is also what it means. If you are RCC or EOC then it is a different story.

By the way, it appears that you are back to considering these folks to be cousins and not the children of Joseph. Either way is fine with me.

 

[Thekla]

Point well taken. If you are an English speaker using any and all known English translations of the Bible, this is what it clearly means. If you are a Greek reader and translator this is also what it means. If you are RCC or EOC then it is a different story.

.

Hi, bbbbbbb
perhaps you should consult a Greek (Hellenistic/Koine) dictionary
or explain how Lot's uncle was his brother

 

[bbbbbbb]

perhaps you should consult a Greek (Hellenistic/Greek) dictionary

You might find this very difficult to believe, but I have actually looked into a Greek dictionary, a Koine (Hellenistic) Greek dictionary. And I am in entire agreement with the definitions provided for these words. That is, that the words are typically translated as brothers and sisters, meaning sharing the same womb, but also can mean a close associate or relative.

Please explain how it is that every English translation, including your own, consistently translates these as the same words if, in fact, the accurate translation is something else. It would seem to me that the multitude of translators who have a much better grasp of the language and cultural nuances than either you or I will ever to honestly be able to claim, were either mistaken or were intentionally deceptive in their translations, if these passages were mistranslated.

The bottom line is that there is biblical support, not implication but direct support, to the notion that Mary may well not have remained a virgin following the birth of Jesus Christ.