Speak lovingly of Mary

[Uphill Battle]

I think he's asking for the start of the tradition.

one that cannot be provided.

 

[katholikos]

I think he's asking for the start of the tradition.

one that cannot be provided.

So. One cannot be provided for the stories of Adam & Eve or Noah either.

 

[hogndog]

So. One cannot be provided for the stories of Adam & Eve or Noah either.

I beg to differ* those accounts are both found in the book of Genesis

 

[Uphill Battle]

um... yeah. It's in the scriptures. What do you mean that it can't be found?

 

[katholikos]

I beg to differ* those accounts are both found in the book of Genesis

Thats not what we're talking about. Genesis was written thousands of years after the events of Noah took place. Those stories were handed down orally for centuries before they were written. What I am saying is that the original sources of those oral traditions cannot be documented.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It IS what we are talking about. You are picking up the goalposts and moving them to suit your purpose.

scripture details the Adamic and Noahican stories. it exists.

let's rewind so you can try again.

 

[Thekla]

If I understand, the veracity of oral tradition is under debate, and is an aspect of this entire discussion. The question of the veracity of oral tradition is, in this instance, fairly applied to the portions of the Bible which were recorded long after the teaching began. Again, as the attack is on oral tradition in general, fairness demands the application of the question to all forms of oral tradition, not just the one we like.

 

[katholikos]

It IS what we are talking about. You are picking up the goalposts and moving them to suit your purpose.

scripture details the Adamic and Noahican stories. it exists.

let's rewind so you can try again.

Wrong. You asked for the original sources of Marian doctrines - people who were witnesses at the time. I am saying that you cannot produce the original sources of the stories of Noah. Whats the difference?

 

[Uphill Battle]

You've confused me for someone else. I did not ask for Eyewitnesses. all I ask for is some barest mention in scripture.

in which the Noah and Adam references exist.

moving on...

 

[katholikos]

You've confused me for someone else. I did not ask for Eyewitnesses. all I ask for is some barest mention in scripture....

This is pointless. The Genesis of every Marian doctrine is in scripture. The fact that you reject those scripture intepretations is not the same as them not being there. I don't know why you continue to ask for things when you automatically reject them when they are provided.

 

[Uphill Battle]

because the Genesis of Marian doctrin is NOT in scripture. You have reversed engineered scriptural prooftexts that only make the remotest of sense, and only if you already believed it anyways.

nobody could read the scriptures, and come up with Marian dogma. It has to be drilled in to them before hand.

 

[katholikos]

...nobody could read the scriptures, and come up with Marian dogma. It has to be drilled in to them before hand.

Nobody could read the Bible and come up with a 27 book list for the NT either. So there you are.

I don't mind debating the point, but your arguments are based on flawed examples.

 

[Thekla]

and how much of OT scripture quoted in the NT would have been otherwise "obvious" ?
The Psalm quote used by Peter in reference to Judas and his replacement, the extensive use of the language of Genesis (light and life) used by John ? The OT contained veiled language and "typos"; the NT uses the OT as both direct meaning (as in Paul's reference to Abraham) and as typos. The Lukan passages concerning Mary use typos and rare language to connect her to the Ark of the covenant - in translation the references are paled, but it is inacurate to claim this denotes absence of the typos itself.

 

[MamaZ]

Wrong. You asked for the original sources of Marian doctrines - people who were witnesses at the time. I am saying that you cannot produce the original sources of the stories of Noah. Whats the difference?

The difference is that they are in scripture which all scripture is inspired of God and not from mens own thinking. As Peter tells us. The NT scriptures are also inspired of God. For they are scripture. Nothing in the OT nor the NT scriptures to even suggest what is held as dogma about Mary.

 

[Thekla]

Gabriel appeared to Mary when she was already betrothed. If you read the passage attentively, you will note that Gabriel announces a future pregnancy: Gabriel uses the word idou (a future event), Mary is not yet pregnant, and Gabriel later responds to Mary that the child will be conceived by the Holy Spirit. The last statement of Gabriel's is in response to Mary's statement, "I don't know a man."

Mary's statement makes no sense as a response to a future pregnancy if she is merely refering to her present unmarried status.

Could someone who does not accept her ever-virginity explain this contradiction ?

 

[Rick Otto]

Mystery!
The glorious Wild Card of religious affectation.
With enough Mystery, all things are believable.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is pointless. The Genesis of every Marian doctrine is in scripture. The fact that you reject those scripture intepretations is not the same as them not being there. I don't know why you continue to ask for things when you automatically reject them when they are provided.

We are in agreement! It is pointless to imagine that the genesis of every Marian doctrine is in scripture when the scripture clearly and plainly attests to the fact the Mary and Joseph were married (i.e. Joseph kept Mary a virgin and (carnally) knew her after the birth of Jesus) and that Jesus thus had (named) brothers and sisters.

So, what is your point other than the fact that you willfully choose to dispense with the plain word of God and insert imaginative interpretations for your prooftexts?

 

[katholikos]

...Nothing in the OT nor the NT scriptures to even suggest what is held as dogma about Mary.

Yes they do. You are just reading them wrong. That is the bane of Sola Scriptura.

.

 

[katholikos]

We are in agreement! It is pointless to imagine that the genesis of every Marian doctrine is in scripture when the scripture clearly and plainly attests to the fact the Mary and Joseph were married (i.e. Joseph kept Mary a virgin and (carnally) knew her after the birth of Jesus) and that Jesus thus had (named) brothers and sisters.

No, it does not plainly attest to that. The only thing that attests to that is your erroneous 21st century interpretation of the Sacred Texts.

The bane of Sola Scriptura strikes again.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I'm done. We've hit the inevitable brick wall of "you just don't read scripture right."

not much point in continuing past that point.