Speak lovingly of Mary

[Rick Otto]

why can't those who make this demand authenticate their own theory and speculation on the matter (not to mention the NT they use) ?

My theory is that that PV dogma is based on unsubstantiated rumor.
Isn't it?

BTW, good morning everyone. I hope your coffee is as good as mine.

 

[Thekla]

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

if you read back over your posts, your requirements keep narrowing - whenever they are met, you change them (not expanding, which would be indicative of "easier"); further, as you well know, your apply requirements that are not held by those you ask them of, and (re: written testimony) are anachronistic. Further, as you know, under the persecutions much was destroyed.

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....

my question is pertinent; it refers to your inability to adhere to your own standards of authentication per the writings of the NT.

If you apply the standard to yourself, re: something you accept, in order to maintain integrity you must either 1. dump the NT or 2. admit that you adhere to unauthenticated tradition.


.[/quote]

 

[Rick Otto]

Even without hostile or uninvested interest witness, the NT offers written testimony of facts.
Marian PV dogma does not.

 

[Thekla]

My theory is that that PV dogma is based on unsubstantiated rumor.
Isn't it?

BTW, good morning everyone. I hope your coffee is as good as mine.

coffee is good, thanks
soda bread is ready to cut

And my response is, given the paucity of extant 1st century NT texts, the NT we have (accepted on tradition) was authenticated on unsubstantiated rumor and worse (the ethos, experience and living tradition of the Church who called together those who "authenticated" it) is based on tradition (which you have characterized as rumor).

 

[katholikos]

My theory is that that PV dogma is based on unsubstantiated rumor.
Isn't it?

BTW, good morning everyone. I hope your coffee is as good as mine.

I think she means your PV of, say, Mary having sex. You guys argue against Mary's Ever-Virginity, yet you cannot solidly substatiate the opposite view. I think that's a pretty fair statement.

 

[Thekla]

Even without hostile or uninvested interest witness, the NT offers written testimony of facts.
Marian PV dogma does not.

prove it

 

[MamaZ]

Well when we see those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus and His family they do mention brothers and even names them and also sisters. Now before you go and say they may be cousins or relatives lets look at Paul when He states that Junais and Andronicus who are his kinsmen. Meaning realatives.

 

[Thekla]

Well when we see those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus and His family they do mention brothers and even names them and also sisters. Now before you go and say they may be cousins or relatives lets look at Paul when He states that Junais and Andronicus who are his kinsmen. Meaning realatives.

- if you consult a Koine Greek dictionary, you will find the meaning is not clearly "blood sibling"
- if you are familiar with Semitic culture, you will find the meaning is not clearly "blood sibling"
- if you remember that Paul did not author the Gospels, nor did he use consistent terminology, then the meaning "blood siblings" cannot be applied to the Gospels based on Paul's usage

 

[katholikos]

I have tried to point out the importance of understanding Semitic culture in other threads, but it fell on deaf ears.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Even without hostile or uninvested interest witness, the NT offers written testimony of facts.
Marian PV dogma does not.
​

prove it

Ok.
the NT offers written testimony of facts:

Matt1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

The above is written testimony of a fact.
It is of course arguable as to its truth, as is everything, but it is a written statement of a known fact.

Marian PV dogma does not:
Traditionaly, proving a negative isn't expected to be possible.
If PV advocates had a scrap of written testimony as to a fact or even a fact-based rumor rather than extrapolation from supposedly implicit references, it would be cited with fanfare and the controversy would shift from the plausibility of the theory to the believability of the fact.
If the fact was testified of in the accepted canon, it would be accepted at least to the degree of ending any argument about it being fact.

Advocates of the PV tradition have had every opportunity to present fact-based information, but all I've seen is substantiaton of the existence of the belief and explanation for the basis of belief, but no reference or citation of any directly pertinent facts.

If that leaves you feeling unsatisfide, then at least you know how I feel about having a reason to believe in Mary's PV.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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) ?

I think the point that CJ and others including myself have been making is that Protestants do not hold any dogma on the matter. They can, and do, hold various theories and speculations, which are properly called pious opinions, but do not hold any dogmatic view. This is in contrast to the RCC which maintains that it not only is a dogma, but this dogma must be embraced and believed as absolute fact in order for a person to gain salvation.

It seems to me that, if this dogma is crucial to my salvation, my friends in the RCC would be able to provide some apologetic evidence for it. Thus far the only "evidence" that has been provided is that a lot of people have believed this for a very long time, although there is no evidence of anyone believing this, much less positing the notion, prior to the third century.

 

[katholikos]

....the RCC which maintains that it not only is a dogma, but this dogma must be embraced and believed as absolute fact in order for a person to gain salvation.....

That is NOT true. The Church - The Catholic Church, not "RCC", thank you very much - does not teach that the only way to salvation is to accept this dogma. That is a misrepresentation, and I respectfully request that you retract it.

 

[Thekla]

I think the point that CJ and others including myself have been making is that Protestants do not hold any dogma on the matter. They can, and do, hold various theories and speculations, which are properly called pious opinions, but do not hold any dogmatic view. This is in contrast to the RCC which maintains that it not only is a dogma, but this dogma must be embraced and believed as absolute fact in order for a person to gain salvation.

It seems to me that, if this dogma is crucial to my salvation, my friends in the RCC would be able to provide some apologetic evidence for it. Thus far the only "evidence" that has been provided is that a lot of people have believed this for a very long time, although there is no evidence of anyone believing this, much less positing the notion, prior to the third century.

I am only requesting that an equal standard be applied to both "sides"; ie. that you provide authentication for the NT. As explained, we accept the NT as part of Tradition; that is its authentication. We hold the teaching of ever-virginity of Mary as part of Tradition. A standard that cannot be met by your "side" (proof of the authenticity of the present text of the NT) can hardly be required of our "side". We are persistently reminded here that Tradition is "not enough". Again, if Tradition is not enough, then the same standard should be applied to your own beliefs (re: the NT as an example).

 

[Thekla]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Even without hostile or uninvested interest witness, the NT offers written testimony of facts.
Marian PV dogma does not.
​

Ok.
the NT offers written testimony of facts:

Matt1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

The above is written testimony of a fact.
It is of course arguable as to its truth, as is everything, but it is a written statement of a known fact.

if the above are facts, then they can be verified through extra-Biblical historical references that are verifiable. Using the Bible to verify the Bible is begging the question.

Marian PV dogma does not:
Traditionaly, proving a negative isn't expected to be possible.
If PV advocates had a scrap of written testimony as to a fact or even a fact-based rumor rather than extrapolation from supposedly implicit references, it would be cited with fanfare and the controversy would shift from the plausibility of the theory to the believability of the fact.
If the fact was testified of in the accepted canon, it would be accepted at least to the degree of ending any argument about it being fact.

require the same of your facts above, beyond a source that begs the question.
further, to require such evidence of a largely oral culture is "imperialistic" (like the requirement of deed title for land held for centuries by community/familial recount in order to prove ownership when deed/title was newly introduced but was not the standard for proof of ownership previously).

Advocates of the PV tradition have had every opportunity to present fact-based information, but all I've seen is substantiaton of the existence of the belief and explanation for the basis of belief, but no reference or citation of any directly pertinent facts.

as above; further, you are trying to "grandfather in" a more recent method of verification. And again, apply the same standard to proving the authenticity of your NT.

If that leaves you feeling unsatisfide, then at least you know how I feel about having a reason to believe in Mary's PV.

You can't prove the veracity of your NT. And it was accepted and passed on based on the very standard you decry as inadequate.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That is NOT true. The Church - The Catholic Church, not "RCC", thank you very much - does not teach that the only way to salvation is to accept this dogma. That is a misrepresentation, and I respectfully request that you retract it.

Greetings Kath. How come you had to put it 2 different ways

Luke 21:24 "And they shall be falling by mouth of sword, and they shall be being led captive into all the Nations. And Jerusalem shall be being trampled/pathsousin <3961> (5692) by nations until which may be being filled/plhrwqwsin <4137> (5686) times of nations/eqnwn <1484> [Ezekiel 30:1/Daniel 12/Revelation 11:2/ 13:10]

Reve 11:2 and the court, the without of the sanctuary, be thou casting-out! out-side, and no her thou should be measuring, that she was given to the Nations. And the city, the holy, They shall be trampling/pathsousin <3961> (5692) forty two months

Reve 13:10 If any into captivity/aicmalwsian <161> into captivity/aicmalwsian <161> he is going away. If any in sword to be killed, is binding him in sword to be killed. Here is the endurance and the faith of the saints [Luke 21:24]

 

[Rick Otto]

if the above are facts, then they can be verified through extra-Biblical historical references that are verifiable. Using the Bible to verify the Bible is begging the question.

They are "Biblical facts". We're not asking the Bible to verify the Bible because we both agree the Bible is an acceptable resource.

require the same of your facts above, beyond a source that begs the question.

It is a written form we both trust and it addresses facts. Tradition hasn't addressed any facts regardless of any standard of measure. So no questions at all are being begged.
The PV belief is total conjecture. No corroborating facts are available.

further, to require such evidence of a largely oral culture is "imperialistic" (like the requirement of deed title for land held for centuries by community/familial recount in order to prove ownership when deed/title was newly introduced but was not the standard for proof of ownership previously).

I'm not requiring written evidence.
I'm only asking for PV facts.
Traditions supplies beliefs & reasons for PV, but nothing factual.
It's like fantasy for fantasy's sake.

as above; further, you are trying to "grandfather in" a more recent method of verification. And again, apply the same standard to proving the authenticity of your NT.

Not realy. I'm not legislating anything, this is just discussion and the PV belief won't gain or lose any steam over it. I'm not even addressing authenticity. I have limited this to plausability. A pertinent fact would go miles toward offering plausability.

You can't prove the veracity of your NT. And it was accepted and passed on based on the very standard you decry as inadequate.

The NT books contain facts & themes that resonate with & evolve out of OT books. Facts that are referenceable, citeable, and many of which have been archeologicaly proven as accurate.

I'm not asking for archeological evidence or even anything written authenticaly or not. Just facts. Where are they? They would provide a structural integrity to the belief that theological theories alone can't.

 

[katholikos]

,,,It seems to me that, if this dogma is crucial to my salvation, my friends in the RCC would be able to provide some apologetic evidence for it...

And round and round we go.. ..where we stop, nobody knows.

This sub-forum is full of 100's of pages of evidence. You just refuse to hear it. Every few pages you start back at square one.

You know what? Give me solid evidence of the existance of God. Let's start there. You believe in God: Let's see if you can meet the standards of proof that you demand from others. I want evidence - evidence that meets the same level of certitude that you are demnding.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is NOT true. The Church - The Catholic Church, not "RCC", thank you very much - does not teach that the only way to salvation is to accept this dogma. That is a misrepresentation, and I respectfully request that you retract it.

I will respectfully retract my statement when you can provide adequate citations showing that a member of the Catholic Church can deny and disbelieve a dogma of the Catholic church which has been infallibly declared to be such by the Pope speaking ex-cathedra, as was done in 1950 concerning this particular dogma, and still be considered to be a participant in the salvation offered through the Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am only requesting that an equal standard be applied to both "sides"; ie. that you provide authentication for the NT. As explained, we accept the NT as part of Tradition; that is its authentication. We hold the teaching of ever-virginity of Mary as part of Tradition. A standard that cannot be met by your "side" (proof of the authenticity of the present text of the NT) can hardly be required of our "side". We are persistently reminded here that Tradition is "not enough". Again, if Tradition is not enough, then the same standard should be applied to your own beliefs (re: the NT as an example).

If you wish to discuss the issues related to the canon of scripture, there is a forum for that, as I am sure you know. This thread, however, is not about the canon of scripture. It is generally accepted that participants of this forum are in agreement concerning, at least, the canon of the NT and its veracity. If you do not accept the canon of the NT, then I recommend starting a thread in the appropriate forum where your concerns will be addressed.

The difficulty here is that we have widely divergent positions. On one hand, there is a denomination which maintains that PV is dogmatic, infallible truth. On the other, there are an enormous number of denominations which do not go to that extreme, including the EO and virtually all Protestant denominations. In fact, these latter folks do not dogmatically maintain a position as absolute truth on the issue. Nor do they necessary believe it to be absolutely false, either. What some, such as CJ, are requesting is objective evidence that this doctrine was not a human invention but, indeed, is God's truth.

It would be a different story altogether if an individual or a denomination maintained that this doctrine was absolutely false. Then the burden of proof would also rest squarely on them.

 

[Thekla]

They are "Biblical facts". We're not asking the Bible to verify the Bible because we both agree the Bible is an acceptable resource.

I guess I haven't been clear:through what authentication process does the Bible become acceptable to you ?
We accept the Bible, and specifically the NT, through Tradition. If Tradition is a suspect means of verification, what alternate method do you propose, and what is the content of the NT per that alternate method ?

It is a written form we both trust and it addresses facts. Tradition hasn't addressed any facts regardless of any standard of measure. So no questions at all are being begged.
The PV belief is total conjecture. No corroborating facts are available.

So the written form is automatically valid ? This is a curious notion. In this sense, Celsus is equally valid as the NT, as some of his criticisms of Christianity are still in print.

Again, how do you confirm that the written NT is the same as the NT books written in the 1st century ?

As for what Tradition has offered, they are typically dismissed. So I repeat the question asked previously: upon review of OT citations in the NT, how many are readily apparent ? (I gave the example of the Psalm quote used by Peter to support the replaacement of Judas). If we quote the OT references to Mary, they are immediately dismissed, yet they are no less apparent than many of the OT references and applications in the NT. Further, the Lukan passages which directly refer to the Ark require more than a passing glance - what degree of effort is offered when investigating such passages ?

I'm not requiring written evidence.
I'm only asking for PV facts.
Traditions supplies beliefs & reasons for PV, but nothing factual.
It's like fantasy for fantasy's sake.

This is not an argument.
What qualifies as "factual" ?

Not realy. I'm not legislating anything, this is just discussion and the PV belief won't gain or lose any steam over it. I'm not even addressing authenticity. I have limited this to plausability. A pertinent fact would go miles toward offering plausability.

Certainly is legalistic, though. You are requiring a sort of verification that was absent in the authentication of the NT. Why ?

You are claiming a standard, and then applying it to a process that did not recognise the same standard.

The NT books contain facts & themes that resonate with & evolve out of OT books. Facts that are referenceable, citeable, and many of which have been archeologicaly proven as accurate.

And some of those facts and themes that resonate concern Mary - look closely at the Lukan linguistic style, heavily borrowed from the LXX, and the terminology he uses - again, an echo of the LXX. Translations rarely preserve this -- in part because the non-Tradition inclined west has fought mightily against the LXX.

If everything in the OT was so obvious, why would Christ teach these things after His ressurection (Acts).

And again, it seems that in this discussion, facts are facts when you say they are. And the NT is the same as the missing 1st century texts because you say it is. Thats tradition, only its your tradition. How is this any different from our using tradition ?

I'm not asking for archeological evidence or even anything written authenticaly or not. Just facts. Where are they? They would provide a structural integrity to the belief that theological theories alone can't.

the EO definition of theology is not contained in the western definition of theology, so this point is moot.