Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla · Sep 5, 2008

bbbbbbb said:
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.

Again, the translation from Greek into English is not a "straight shot" - there is rarely a one to one correlation of meaning. Further there are words in the NT who present a straight shot meaning, but gets translated differently.

My dad, a protestant minister fluent in Koine and holding three graduate degrees in theology believes that Mary is ever-virgin. My mother, a first generation Greek (Greek protestants, btw) who read the Gospel in Koine believes Mary to be ever-virgin.

As before, translators make choices, and also fail to recognise there is a choice to be made where there is an univestigated 'default' understanding.

But the question does remain: how is Lot's uncle also his brother ?
(More examples upon request.)

Philothei · Sep 5, 2008

Listen to what you say here...*sign*

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.

The ever virginity was maintained and used...too... no difference here... You still do not accept it. why?

I don't distrust the ECF's per se... I distrust the way it is frequently used.

I can say the same about the Bible... I like the Bible and I do not like it is used by Protestansts to prove and disprove points just the ....same way... That is not the Bible's fault though... How is it that because we do not like the water we though away the baby too.....By rejecting the Fahters you do not get rid of the problems... You create more as you through away writting that support actually the bible... i.e. the treatise on the Holy Trinity from St. Basil...

Nor, given the contradictions you will find among the ECF's, do I trust them completely either.

But you can find contrtadictions in the Bible too..that somehow you got to come to a solution by yourself anyways...
How can you NOT TRUST them when they put the bible together ....there is where the irrational thinking begins.....blah.....*sign*

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.

AGain how is this differnt from 'cherry picking" on the Bible? Please UB you are intellegent and I know you are... You guys pick and chose verses left and right shame on you telling us we do that with the Fathers...

Proper quotation of the Father has to do with context and "no cherry picking". All ECF fathers are not right and some of their writtings were condemned by the Church. The same Church that condemned some "gospels" as gnostic and some reduced their status to Duerocannonical... You trusted them to do that much for you... remember?

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.

NOT ALL of i.e. Origen's writings were heretical. The way they examined the scripture to see what jives and what does not they did for all... That is the reason they had councils and not some 'pseudo-theologians' but people who did nothing else but studying the Bible to see who is right and who is wrong. All councils had to radify the canons of the previous to evaluate and re-evaluate the canons...

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.

I am not going to ask how so as I am not interested to a circular agrument...

end longwinded post.

End of longwinded rant....

katholikos · Sep 5, 2008

.

There is a problem with using dictionaries: They may translate a word, but they can never tell you the author's intent. The men who wrote the scriptures were JEWS. They thought like JEWS. It doesn't matter what the Greek word for "brother" was; What matters is what did the JEWISH MEN ACTUALLY MEAN when they used that word.

I could write a letter in German to a friend, but just because I write it in German, I am still going to use American euphemisms that I am accustomed to. I won't use German euphemisms just because I am writing my letter in German

Uphill Battle · Sep 5, 2008

which, in itself, is no solid proof that the author intended cousins, instead of brothers.

in reality, the assertion that they are his older half brothers, is far more credible than the cousins arguement.

WarriorAngel · Sep 5, 2008

Rick Otto said:
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.

The ancient Churches have always known and believed she remained a virgin...
It wasnt until 1900 AD or so that 'man' [a carnal creature] began to question whether or not a woman filled with the Holy Spirit, and conceived thru the Holy Spirit would also betroth herself to a man of flesh.

It became a speculation that makes the Virgin a spectacle.
Where before 1900AD or so, this was believed based on faith and oral teaching based on the OT scriptures and what was always taught. The posts i put in here [a few times now] - AND knowing she was a virgin, kept the mind of man from thinking carnal thots of the Mother of God...

Preserving her purity as the Lord said about entering the gate - where no man can come after Him and enter...where He enters - was the precise reason the OT foreshadows her virginity - because these things are not fit for any man to even consider let alone visualise.
And thus comes the scandal of His beloved Mother, and only one entity wants that scandal.

The eunich said to Philip - how should i understand if NO MAN should teach me...
HE said as he was trying to read and understand the OT himself.

God Bless.

WarriorAngel · Sep 5, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
which, in itself, is no solid proof that the author intended cousins, instead of brothers.

in reality, the assertion that they are his older half brothers, is far more credible than the cousins arguement.

Solid proof?

Could you show me solid proof of anything in the Bible?

Uphill Battle · Sep 5, 2008

WarriorAngel said:
The ancient Churches have always known and believed she remained a virgin...
It wasnt until 1900 AD or so that 'man' [a carnal creature] began to question whether or not a woman filled with the Holy Spirit, and conceived thru the Holy Spirit would also betroth herself to a man of flesh.

It became a speculation that makes the Virgin a spectacle.
Where before 1900AD or so, this was believed based on faith and oral teaching based on the OT scriptures and what was always taught. The posts i put in here [a few times now] - AND knowing she was a virgin, kept the mind of man from thinking carnal thots of the Mother of God...

Preserving her purity as the Lord said about entering the gate - where no man can come after Him and enter...where He enters - was the precise reason the OT foreshadows her virginity - because these things are not fit for any man to even consider let alone visualise.
And thus comes the scandal of His beloved Mother, and only one entity wants that scandal.

The eunich said to Philip - how should i understand if NO MAN should teach me...
HE said as he was trying to read and understand the OT himself.

God Bless.

utter nonsense.

WarriorAngel said:
Solid proof?

Could you show me solid proof of anything in the Bible?

um... yes.

MamaZ · Sep 5, 2008

Matters not that Joseph was a mere man for Mary was a mere woman.

Rick Otto · Sep 5, 2008

Truth In Pontificating laws require you to disclose your direct biblical support within 48hrs of a biblical pontification. Your cooperation is not only appreciated,... IT'S THE LAW.

katholikos · Sep 5, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
utter nonsense.

um... yes.

Brilliant response. One of your better ones, I might add

katholikos · Sep 5, 2008

MamaZ said:
Matters not that Joseph was a mere man for Mary was a mere woman.

You're right. It doesn't matter that Joseph was a mere man for Mary was a mere woman. It has no bearing on the fact that Mary was free from sin, remained a virgin, and that she was assumed into heaven. Because all things are possible with God. God raises the lowly and knocks down the skeptic.

Uphill Battle · Sep 5, 2008

katholikos said:
Brilliant response. One of your better ones, I might add

I'm glad you approve.

she asked if I can prove anything in the bible. The answer is yes.

when you ask a yes or no question, why would you expect more?

katholikos said:
You're right. It doesn't matter that Joseph was a mere man for Mary was a mere woman. It has no bearing on the fact that Mary was free from sin, remained a virgin, and that she was assumed into heaven. Because all things are possible with God. God raises the lowly and knocks down the skeptic.

nice misquote.

skeptic is not what is brought low... unless your catholic version changed another verse.

WarriorAngel · Sep 5, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
utter nonsense.

um... yes.

No you do not.

Show me the proof.
You cannot - because it is all based on faith.
Yes, archeology can find proof...
BUT basically, the entire Bible is based solely on faith...
Archeology can in fact proove these folks existed...but it cannot proove what is faith related.

SO if you have faith in mere men who knew Christ and wrote about Him, how come you cannot have faith in those facts outside of the written but yet were orally taught?

I mean, the Bible you cling to says to keep the oral too.

Quandry for those who do not keep the oral teachings.
Well, i should say, for those who pick and choose which ones to keep.

God Bless.

Rick Otto said:
Truth In Pontificating laws require you to disclose your direct biblical support within 48hrs of a biblical pontification. Your cooperation is not only appreciated,... IT'S THE LAW.

I gave at the office.

Philothei · Sep 5, 2008

Hey UB faith alone is believing in the Bible how hard it this to accept... Science would not have any proof to use after 2,000 years now ... .would it? Still looking forward to see any "scientific" proof of the resurrection....hmmmmm... But then again I do not need to since I totally trust the worshiping community AKA the Church of the time who gave us the oral tradtion that was written down.....

Uphill Battle · Sep 5, 2008

WarriorAngel said:
No you do not.

Show me the proof.
You cannot - because it is all based on faith.
Yes, archeology can find proof...
BUT basically, the entire Bible is based solely on faith...
Archeology can in fact proove these folks existed...but it cannot proove what is faith related.

SO if you have faith in mere men who knew Christ and wrote about Him, how come you cannot have faith in those facts outside of the written but yet were orally taught?

I mean, the Bible you cling to says to keep the oral too.

Quandry for those who do not keep the oral teachings.
Well, i should say, for those who pick and choose which ones to keep.

God Bless.

I gave at the office.

you shifted the goalposts. You asked if anything in the bible could be proven. The answer is an absolute yes. Don't redefine terms when your point has been defeated.

lionroar0 · Sep 5, 2008

I'm thinking this coming up Sundays reading.

Peace

Rick Otto · Sep 5, 2008

WarriorAngel said:
The ancient Churches have always known and believed she remained a virgin...

How did they know?

sunlover1 · Sep 6, 2008

WarriorAngel said:
I mean, the Bible you cling to says to keep the oral too.

Quandry for those who do not keep the oral teachings.
Well, i should say, for those who pick and choose which ones to keep.

Angel. We're sincere about our Scripture clinging, not trying
to deceive, but seeking truth and continuing in the faith.
This was a blessing to me, so I thought it might bless you too.
The second passage claims that we are a sweet savour of
Christ, unto God. :O

8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing;
knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10 For he that will love life, and see good days,
let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers:
but the face of the Lord is againstb them that do evil.
13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye:
and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always
to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason
of the hope that is in you with meekness and fearc:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers,
they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=48486445#_ftn3
I'm going to need to meditate on that one

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: 16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death;
and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corruptc the word of God:
but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=48486445#_ftn2
c corrupt: or, deal deceitfully with

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=48486445#_ftnref2

May God bless you RICHLY
sunlover

MamaZ · Sep 6, 2008

WarriorAngel said:
No you do not.

Show me the proof.
You cannot - because it is all based on faith.
Yes, archeology can find proof...
BUT basically, the entire Bible is based solely on faith...
Archeology can in fact proove these folks existed...but it cannot proove what is faith related.

SO if you have faith in mere men who knew Christ and wrote about Him, how come you cannot have faith in those facts outside of the written but yet were orally taught?

I mean, the Bible you cling to says to keep the oral too.

Quandry for those who do not keep the oral teachings.
Well, i should say, for those who pick and choose which ones to keep.

God Bless.

I gave at the office.

well if the Oral lined up to the written I wouldn't mind but when it goes out into left field I have a problem for we are to test the Spirits to see if they are indeed of God. So therefore where in the written do we see any of what is being spoken of Mary by some? Where do we see she is the queen of anything? Where do we see she was assumed? Where do we see she was forever virgin? It does not line up with the written so therefore out it goes and nonesense and teachings of men.

katholikos · Sep 6, 2008

Rick Otto said:
How did they know?

The same way they knew which books to canonize into the NT, by the tradition handed down to them

The truth is, the whole Bible is "Tradition." The stories of Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc. were all written down thousands of years after the fact. The books of the NT were not canonized until hundreds of years after their writing.

The Bible is Tradition put down in writing. So, your question "How did they know" could apply to ANY Christian truth, and the answer will always be the same: TRADITION

Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla

Guest

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I close my eyes and see you smile

I close my eyes and see you smile

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I close my eyes and see you smile

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Coffee drinker

The Dude Abides

Beloved, Let us love one another

MamaZ

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency