Speak lovingly of Mary

MamaZ · Sep 7, 2008

katholikos said:
That wasn't necessary.
And I find it a bit offensive

Not meaning to offend but God will use who and what He deems to get His word out to His people for He has promised us that He will not leave us as orphans. And God does do what He promises. So if you were offended I do apologize. That was not my intention. But it is a truth recorded in the scriptures. So when one claims sovereignty over the scriptures one has to realize that it is God who is over His word and not man. Man is under His word.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 7, 2008

katholikos said:
I would like to see the passage where Mary actually gives birth to another child besides Jesus.

Moot, since there is NO Protestant denomination known to me that has any doctrine (much less dogma) about any sibs of Jesus. In fact, no denomination known to me directly does.

I think you MIGHT be confusing the issue of siblings with the issue of sex; there are two denominations in the world (among the 33,000 that Catholics insist exist) that have a DOGMA about Mary's sex life and how often she had sex. That dogma is about sex, not siblings.

As I'm quite sure you know, it IS possible to have sex and not have a child specifically named in the Bible as a result of that singular act. In fact, it's possible to have sex and not have a child AT ALL (whether specificly so mention in the Bible or not).

Even IF you could show that Jesus had no sibs (and, of course, it BEST you can do from Scripture is how that such is a theoretical possibility), then obviously you've not provided a ouch of ANYTHING to substantiate this story about Mary and this DOGMA of two denominations.

.

katholikos · Sep 7, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Moot, since there is NO Protestant denomination known to me that has any doctrine (much less dogma) about any sibs of Jesus.....

Thats a contradiction, since you keep insisting Mary had other children.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 7, 2008

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

Click to expand...

Yes they do. You are just reading them wrong.

No.

Reading involves words.
When you can provide the words that teach that Mary had no sex ever, then we're be discussing READING.

What you've done is equate the insertion of your opinion INTO the text as eisegesis with the text itself. What you've done is insist that God be require to agree with the opinion of the RC Denomination, you are NOT taking about READING.

.

Rick Otto · Sep 7, 2008

katholikos said:
When will you guys ever learn that the only way to understand this stuff is to understand Jewish culture. The only way to read the Scriptures "in context" is to read them in the context of Jewish culture. And, in Jewish culture - and the culture of that region at that time - the mother of a King was always the queen, the "Gabirah" - Queen Mother.

You don't get it. The "Tradition" lay in knowing which of those writings were inspired and which were not. There is gobbs of stuff that is "written." We quote ECFs all the time. But the decision in the 4th century regarding which 27 books were inspired was based on apostolic Tradition.

We "get it" fine, we just don't pick it up & run with it. We don't confuse His humanity with His divinity and in Jewish Culture His kingship wasn't an established fact despite His lineage and in Jewish Culture only the mothers of established kings were established queens. Mary was the mother of His humanity, not the mother of His divinity (for which there was none) so her 'application' for that throne is denied.(Error 404 File Not Found).

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

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

How did they know?

Originally Posted by katholikos

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

Epistles are not tradition.
When something becomes "It is written", it is no longer tradition.
& "Tradition" doesn't answer the question "How did they know?" it merely answers the question."What did they choose to believe?"
I am asking how did they know what to choose to believe"?
Tradition has to start somewhere even if it goes wildly off track.
Where did the tradition that she was PV begin? In the affectionate but religiously vain imagination of nearby wannabees with a hyper-piety agenda.
That would aid in the Nicolaitin agenda of dividing the Body of Christ into leaders & followers. That follows the institutional model not the family model given us.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 7, 2008

katholikos said:
Thats a contradiction, since you keep insisting Mary had other children.

Show me where I EVER said that Mary had other children...

Show me where ANY Protestant denomination officially teachings such (for example, a quote from its Catechism or official Confessions).

You seem to be confusing sex with siblings.
The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has to do with Perpetual Viriginity.
If Mary had no other children, that has no indication that she had no sex, unless you want to now substantiation that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a singular instance of sex and not have a child as a result of that, a child so indicated in the Bible. Good luck with that one....

.

katholikos · Sep 7, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
..Reading involves words....

Really? I didn't know that.

You are reading the words wrong

katholikos · Sep 7, 2008

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Show me where I EVER said that Mary had other children...

...You seem to be confusing sex with siblings.
The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has to do with Perpetual Viriginity....

Ahhh. So you believe Mary was having sex but not Children? In the first century? Thats even more ridiculous than saying she did have children.

Wel, if this is just about sex: Show me a scripture where Mary and Joseph are having sex then

Rick Otto · Sep 7, 2008

It isn't just about sex. It is about vain imaginations claiming to know about her sex life without any more substantion than hearsay (rumor).

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 7, 2008

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

Okay...

Quote for me just 5 people from before 100 AD who specifically teach that Mary was a PERPETUAL Virgin. I don't request that you do this to 4 BC to qualify the "always" or ALL Christians - just 5 from before 100 AD will do to give some credence to your comment....

Just give 5 quotes from just 5 people from the first century. Thanks.

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.

1. There is and have never been any DOGMA about whether Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit or "betroth" to a man.

2. In the late 8th century, there was stated a dogma that Mary was a PERPETUAL Virgin. The earliest singular mention of that view dates from the third century, I believe. But that's a different issue that Mary being filled with the Holy Spirit.

3. You seem to be confusing an accepted view with Dogma. I consider all the Marian dogmas of the RCC to be acceptable, as did Luther and as do the Lutheran denominations, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is dogma - if such attains the substantiation for the highest level of certainty and importance. THAT Luther never taught. There were many around Luther who did NOT embrace some of the Marian views of his day (not altogether the same as the Catholic views now) and while he disagreed, there was no excommunications, not burning at the stake, no official rebukes - because these things weren't/arent' dogma. Protestants call these sorts of things "pious opinion." It's permitted because it has solid historic affirmation but it's not doctrine (and certainly not dogma) because it lacks solid biblical affirmation. Catholicism has a 500 year history of excommunicating, anathematizing, and much worse Protestants who don't deny their unique new viewpoints but who don't call it DOGMA either.

kept the mind of man from thinking carnal thots of the Mother of God...

THAT IS the "bottom line" to the Dogma of the Perpetual Virignity of Mary for Catholics. It all seems to boil down to one point: The loving, mutual sharing of maritial intimacies makes the WIFE impure, sinful, bad.... Catholics deny that that is what they conclude (dogmatically) and yet as you just did, it is ALWAYS the "reason" and "basis" for this dogma. Sad, I think. Sexist, I feel. Entirely unbiblical, I'm sure.

Preserving her purity....

See above.

.

Thekla · Sep 7, 2008

Rick Otto said:
That would aid in the Nicolaitin agenda of dividing the Body of Christ into leaders & followers. That follows the institutional model not the family model given us.

can you authenticate your theory ?

Thekla · Sep 7, 2008

California Josaih -

you keep changing your "requirements" for authentication; further you expect those who adhere to different "requirements" to fulfill yours.

If we are to show proof of five witnesses from the first century, please provide five witnesses from the first century that authenticate that the NT text you have is the same as those used in the first century.

Rick Otto · Sep 7, 2008

Yes. My theory that there is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor to authenticate the tradition of her PV is vindicated by the fact there is no substantiation on the facts re: her sex life.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 7, 2008

katholikos said:
Ahhh. So you believe Mary was having sex but not Children? In the first century? Thats even more ridiculous than saying she did have children.

No.

It would help our discussion if you understand that "reading" involves words. The words that exist.

You seem to be confusing having no children with having no sex.
It IS possible to have a singular instance of sex and have no child at all specifically mention in the Bible - or even at all. I trust you know that.

It's even possible to have sex many times and not have a child specifically mentioned in the Bible - or even a child at all. I personally know two couples - both married for over 40 years - that "tried" to have children (ie they had sex) but never did. But you insist she never had sex even ONCE, not a single instance of such.

You seem to be TRYING to substantiate this Dogma of highest certianty with the reality that it cannot be substantiation that she had any other children. You thus must substantiate that it is IMPOSSIBLE for one to have an instance of sex without that resulting in a child - your arugment depends on that biological point, thus you must substanitate that. Good luck.

Wel, if this is just about sex: Show me a scripture where Mary and Joseph are having sex then

Click to expand...

I NEVER said that she did.
I NEVER said that Joseph did.
(You need to read the words, my friend).

There is NO Protestant denomination known to me that officially teaches (as doctrine, much less dogma) that Mary had sex or Mary didn't have sex or Mary had other children or Mary didn't have other children. You seem to keep getting Protestants confused with Catholicism. Of the 33,000 denominations that Catholics insists exist, there are two with an official view here - and in both cases, it's DOGMA. Both insist that Mary had no sex ever. Thus, as you well know, there are two denominations that now have a view in need of substantiation - and you know what two those are. We're waiting.

Thekla · Sep 7, 2008

Rick Otto said:
Yes. My theory that there is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor to authenticate the tradition of her PV is vindicated by the fact there is no substantiation on the facts re: her sex life.

thats an argument ?

Rick Otto · Sep 7, 2008

Thekla said:
thats an argument ?

It is the Mother Of All Arguments against unsubstantiated hearsay turned dogma.

katholikos · Sep 7, 2008

Thekla said:
thats an argument ?

Im not even sure if its a sentence

Rick Otto · Sep 7, 2008

katholikos said:
Im not even sure if its a sentence

Better ask a priest first.

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 7, 2008

Thekla said:
California Josaih -

you keep changing your "requirements" for authentication

Yes, I keep making it easier and easier and yet, NOTHING.

If we are to show proof of five witnesses from the first century, please provide five witnesses from the first century that authenticate that the NT text you have is the same as those used in the first century.

If you want to discuss the NT canon of books, we can do that - although not in this forum. But, friend, where did I ever post that everyone always accepted the 27 books that we now do? The NT books didn't even always exist; John may not have penned the books associated with him until the 90's - so OBVIOUSLY they were not always accepted. But the diversions, evasions and "lets discuss ANYTHING but the subject at hand" has been going on for for a very, very long time. And friend, I'm just responding to what is stated by our Catholic and Orthodox friends, just asking for some substantiation (and not much) for the statements of fact that are made. And being ever so patient for the reply....

.

Thekla · Sep 7, 2008

Rick Otto said:
It is the Mother Of All Arguments against unsubstantiated hearsay turned dogma.

Rick,

the EO/OO/RC are persistently asked to authenticate their teaching on the ever-virginity of Mary; why can't those who make this demand authenticate their own theory and speculation on the matter (not to mention the NT they use) ?

Speak lovingly of Mary

MamaZ

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency