T
Thekla
Guest
1. your response skips the point
2. your theory that "sex is icky" is a paradigm for the teaching is erroneous
3. chastity is not uncommon in the NT -- consider Christ, John the Baptist, etc
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I doubt Celsus, a typical pagan, bought into the whole "sex is icky" paradigm that underlies Marian doctrine.
The Septuagint is a translation; the NT is not. You know as well as I do that there is a Greek word for cousin and that it appears in the NT.
I'd like a little clarification.
WHAT is importance?
we think everything that occurred refers to Christ -- because He is the center of all things.
It is not in the Christology section because there seems to be a repulsion in fully considering the ithos of EO Christianity.IMHO, the exact opposite is the case.
While I disagree with some of my Protestant brother and sisters the Mary detracts from Christ in Catholic spirituality (I can't speak for Orthodox spirituality), I don't agree (theologically OR spiritually) that all this dogmatic focus on MARY has the sole purpose of focusing on Christ. IF the point was to support Christology then this whole discussion would be in the Christology forum, not the Mariology forum, we'd be discussing the Immaculate Conception of JESUS, the Ascension of JESUS, etc. And we're not.
Do a survey of OT citations in the NT (I mean really do it) and consider how "obvious" they are.Friend, what is OBVIOUS to EVERYONE is that you don't.
NO ONE can "see" what is admittedly not there.
What is going on is very simple and obvious. A theory is being imputed into Scripture by classic, obvious eisegesis. God is being forced to agree with the view - not the other way around. Come on friend, it's very, very obvious. AT BEST (and it would be stretching things beyond the credible), it's YOUR INTERPRATION that is being declared to be DOGMA and YOU feel that Scripture affirms the view - but even that is backwards - you are suggesting that God agrees with YOU, not the other way around.
I'm not RCFrankly, how the Immaculate Conception of MARY glories GOD is a point I'm entirely missing..... Frankly, many of the RCC Marian dogmas don't even seem to glorify Mary and certainly not God.
This is not a matter of feelings.I "get it" and respect the point. I'd only point out that you are speaking of what YOU "consider" and "feel." Mormons "consider" and "feel" a lot, too. You give no credence to their "consider" and "feel" for issues they don't declare as dogmas but it is argued that all must regard how one denomination "considers" and "feels" as DOGMATIC FACT (used to divide the church, condemn others, even burn them at the stake). Freind, we're not talking about what we "feel." We're talking about DOGMA. I "consider" oatmeal a great breakfast food, but I'm not arguing that you are hellbound if you like an English muffin instead.
My arguments have not rested on feelings.
find for yourself St. Basil's definition of Dogma.1. DOGMA should not be substantiated entirely by the "answer" WE give to the question WE ask. Anything can be substantiated in this way. It's worse than worthless.
whatever you say2. Jesus dwelt in the world, too - as God proclaims in His Holy Scriptures. By this logic, that means that the entire WORLD must be sinless. And if it's impossible for the sinless to be in the womb of the sinful, then Mary's mother must have been sinless, too - and so on. It's not only an entirely baseless point but an illogical substantiation.
feelingsOf course, if it's NOT true, then it is a lie and a sin to proclaim it. Worse (IMHO), it is hurtful and painful to Our Blessed Lady and therefore to Her Son.
this is not an argumentSomeone may believe that Mary had 3 eyes, pink hair and 30 kids. They may be sincere in that, that's entirely moot. What MATTERS (and matters a LOT) is: is it true? Because unless you KNOW that it is, it is what the Catholic Catechism calls rumor (a popular but unsubstantiated report or story) - and it declares that to spread such is a SIN. It MIGHT be true but if you don't KNOW that it's True, it's a rumor and a SIN to spread it.
then don't spread rumors about what you opine that others teach, but in love learn and study and consider more than a surface reaction to other Churches.My mum (admittedly a Protestant) taught me to ask 2 things before I spread something about someone: Is it True? Is it kind? IMHO, several of these RCC Marian dogmas fail at both points. I'm uncomfortable about spreading them, especially as DOGMATIC FACTS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE AND CERTAINTY, not because I don't love and respect Her but percisely because I do. Rumors are not loving, spreading them is not speaking lovingly. ESPECIALLY in something at intensely personal and private, something as potentially hurtful and embarrassing as her sex life after Jesus was born.
the NT, in Greek, must take Hebraic concepts and translate them into Greek. Says who?
So you don't pray Mary mother of God have mercy on me?
Josiah said:Friend, what is OBVIOUS to EVERYONE is that you don't.
NO ONE can "see" what is admittedly not there.
What is going on is very simple and obvious. A theory is being imputed into Scripture by classic, obvious eisegesis. God is being forced to agree with the view - not the other way around. Come on friend, it's very, very obvious. AT BEST (and it would be stretching things beyond the credible), it's YOUR INTERPRATION that is being declared to be DOGMA and YOU feel that Scripture affirms the view - but even that is backwards - you are suggesting that God agrees with YOU, not the other way around.
Do a survey of OT citations in the NT (I mean really do it) and consider how "obvious" they are.
Of course, it IS dogma - equal to the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ, just not declared dogma in your specific denomination. Interesting how that's significant to you, but once again, you totally ignored the point. You said these dogmas glorify Christ. Odd how you responded not only by not indicating how this view glories Christ but by distancing yourself from the view entirely.I'm not RCJoisah said:Frankly, how the Immaculate Conception of MARY glories GOD is a point I'm entirely missing..... Frankly, many of the RCC Marian dogmas don't even seem to glorify Mary and certainly not God.
Your apologetic was that Mary MUST be sinless because Jesus dwelt in her.whatever you sayJosiah said:1. DOGMA should not be substantiated entirely by the "answer" WE give to the question WE ask. Anything can be substantiated in this way. It's worse than worthless.
2. Jesus dwelt in the world, too - as God proclaims in His Holy Scriptures. By this logic, that means that the entire WORLD must be sinless. And if it's impossible for the sinless to be in the womb of the sinful, then Mary's mother must have been sinless, too - and so on. It's not only an entirely baseless point but an illogical substantiation.
this is not an argument[/quote][quote =Josiah]Of course, if it's NOT true, then it is a lie and a sin to proclaim it. Worse (IMHO), it is hurtful and painful to Our Blessed Lady and therefore to Her Son.
Someone may believe that Mary had 3 eyes, pink hair and 30 kids. They may be sincere in that, that's entirely moot. What MATTERS (and matters a LOT) is: is it true? Because unless you KNOW that it is, it is what the Catholic Catechism calls rumor (a popular but unsubstantiated report or story) - and it declares that to spread such is a SIN. It MIGHT be true but if you don't KNOW that it's True, it's a rumor and a SIN to spread it.
I have. If the Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that no statement is being made about how often She had sex (if at all), then I'm open to correction. But I've read the Catholic Catechism, I've been taught by Catholic teachers and they have told me that it means that Mary never once ever had intercourse. So, if the Catechism and my teachers are wrong, I'm open to your correction. But, so far, it seems that The Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that Mary was a virgin perpetually. And the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary means that Mary was conceived immaculately. That's what the Catholic Catechism says (yes, I've carefully studied all 2,865 points of it - with Catholic teachers), so if that's not what the dogma is, again, correct the Catechism and my several teachers. OR you can begin to address what is posted here so we can have a conversation instead of these constant diversions, evasions, "let's PLEASE discuss something else!" efforts.then don't spread rumors about what you opine that others teach, but in love learn and study and consider more than a surface reaction to other Churches.Josiah said:My mum (admittedly a Protestant) taught me to ask 2 things before I spread something about someone: Is it True? Is it kind? IMHO, several of these RCC Marian dogmas fail at both points. I'm uncomfortable about spreading them, especially as DOGMATIC FACTS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE AND CERTAINTY, not because I don't love and respect Her but percisely because I do. Rumors are not loving, spreading them is not speaking lovingly. ESPECIALLY in something at intensely personal and private, something as potentially hurtful and embarrassing as her sex life after Jesus was born.
Jesus was a Jew. He did go first unto Isreal but also stated He had other sheep that were not of this Fold as we see withChrist was a Jew - He went first to the lost sheep of Israel. His ministry was in a specific cultural mileau. The NT is written in Greek, and uses Greek concepts but also Semitic concepts.
1. You again entirely ignored what I posted.
Many of the questions I have asked of you have been ignored; maybe we should start at the beginning of this and the other threads and both try to address the unanswered questions on both sides.
2. IF God says in the NT that this is a fulfilled of what God said in the OT, then we have His infallible, written, knowable/unalterable statement on that. That's an altogether different situation that Brigham Young referencing the OT and saying that it is fulfilled in the LDS Church.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, nor how it responds to what I've asked.
3. I like your embrace of Sola Scripture, but, of course, your denomination doesn't agree with you.
how does this refer to what I said (seems to be a non sequiteur)
Of course, it IS dogma - equal to the Trinity or the Two Natures of Christ, just not declared dogma in your specific denomination. Interesting how that's significant to you, but once again, you totally ignored the point. You said these dogmas glorify Christ. Odd how you responded not only by not indicating how this view glories Christ but by distancing yourself from the view entirely.
there is no teaching of the immaculate conception in EO
Your apologetic was that Mary MUST be sinless because Jesus dwelt in her.
But, for some reason, you reject the very same apologetic that the world must be sinless because Scripture specifically says that Jesus dwelt in the world.
you've confused me with someone else
I have. If the Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that no statement is being made about how often She had sex (if at all), then I'm open to correction. But I've read the Catholic Catechism, I've been taught by Catholic teachers and they have told me that it means that Mary never once ever had intercourse. So, if the Catechism and my teachers are wrong, I'm open to your correction. But, so far, it seems that The Dogma of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary means that Mary was a virgin perpetually. And the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary means that Mary was conceived immaculately. That's what the Catholic Catechism says (yes, I've carefully studied all 2,865 points of it - with Catholic teachers), so if that's not what the dogma is, again, correct the Catechism and my several teachers. OR you can begin to address what is posted here so we can have a conversation instead of these constant diversions, evasions, "let's PLEASE discuss something else!" efforts.
I am not RC
Jesus was a Jew. He did go first unto Isreal but also stated He had other sheep that were not of this Fold as we see with
Apostle Paul for He was sent to the Gentiles.The NT is written in Greek but the semitic concepts you speak of is the scriptures of the OT and not the culture nor the traditions. For even Jesus was not so keen on the Jewish tradtions. He rebuked them openly for them. We do not have to be hebrew in culture nor tradition to be one of Christs because it is not based on Hebrew culture nor on Hebrew tradtions but on the very Fact that Christ came to die to save people for their sins. It is Christ Blood that is the new covenant. Isreal was to be a light unto the gentiles. As we can see they did not shine very well. Then the true light came. And now we as His people are to be the lights in the darkened world. Our light is born out of the life, death ,and ressurection of Christ and being born again. Our light is not born out of Jewish culture and tradtion.
when Christ says "temple", he's not referring to the temple of Zeus, nor would those He spoke to think He was referring to Greek temples. Every culture has cultural concepts in the language - Christ was speaking to people within a particular culture.
so? how is this any different? The Jewish culture is as foreign to you as the Greek Hellinistic language.. The two interwind as both were used and both are again foreign to English speakers...How can this be denied... except if we start stating that Christianity is a Germanic religion....The NT is written in Greek but the semitic concepts you speak of is the scriptures of the OT and not the culture nor the traditions.
For even Jesus was not so keen on the Jewish tradtions.
He rebuked them openly for them. We do not have to be hebrew in culture nor tradition to be one of Christs because it is not based on Hebrew culture nor on Hebrew tradtions but on the very Fact that Christ came to die to save people for their sins.
I agree with you here... but still how you think that if you got the major messge down then the other details do not matter... Knowing ONLY that does not mean we know and comprehent the totallity of God's word. Getting ecucated on Christ's message has nothing to do and should not be a cultural venue but a study of his word and finding translations that are as accurate as possilbe to the original message actually helps in NOT ADDING The tradition and wisdom of men ...but rather the wisdom of God ...who spoke in Hebrew to Moses and the prophets...or he spoke in English and had a translator who did translate it in Hebrew....It is Christ Blood that is the new covenant. Isreal was to be a light unto the gentiles. As we can see they did not shine very well. Then the true light came. And now we as His people are to be the lights in the darkened world. Our light is born out of the life, death ,and ressurection of Christ and being born again. Our light is not born out of Jewish culture and tradtion
so? how is this any different? The Jewish culture is as foreign to you as the Greek Hellinistic language.. The two interwind as both were used and both are again foreign to English speakers...How can this be denied... except if we start stating that Christianity is a Germanic religion....
Christianity is not a religion tee hee. It is relationship. It is Christ in us and we being the temple not made of stone and mortar but of human beings. Born of the Spirit of God. Living stones being built up with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone. It is a Spiritual walk with Christ and not a religeous walk with ceremonies and rituals.
What do you mean keen? He did not "know" it? Of course he did he was raised a Jew. Jesus was not so approving of Jewish customs which by the way are traditions.
I think that because there is a gap of the Hebrew/hellenistic culture there is somewhere there misunderstandings in translation.. Have you ever heard things "getting lost in translation" before? Hmmmm... that must be one of those things...
Actually it was not lost. He openly rebuked those for all to see and hear. Jesus came to die. Jesus came to be the sacraficial lamb once for all times.
Also the fact that mainstream seminaries require the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew I think points to the fact translation and interpretation is pretty important when "preaching" or reading the word....Do you think all modern time scholarship is a waste then??? I do not think so...
Actually what is most important is that Christ dwells in you and that it is the Holy Spirit who is the teacher.
I agree with you here... but still how you think that if you got the major messge down then the other details do not matter... Knowing ONLY that does not mean we know and comprehent the totallity of God's word. Getting ecucated on Christ's message has nothing to do and should not be a cultural venue but a study of his word and finding translations that are as accurate as possilbe to the original message actually helps in NOT ADDING The tradition and wisdom of men ...but rather the wisdom of God ...who spoke in Hebrew to Moses and the prophets...or he spoke in English and had a translator who did translate it in Hebrew....
Matters not if you are Hebrew or Greek or scholar or not. Matters not if you are male or female or Bond or slave. For in Christ there is no gap.
I thought so....clueless.
I never said it did matter...You missed my point. Biblical language scholars do help with the concepts in the Bible and they are greatly needed... Why would the Holy Spirit come and "enlighten" the Apostles in speaking many languages if they can "learn" it and that was such an easy job? Imagine Christ's priority in "speaking" languages that the Holy spirit gave them that important task of "speaking in tongues" in order to communicate the message of Christ.....Matters not if you are Hebrew or Greek or scholar or not. Matters not if you are male or female or Bond or slave. For in Christ there is no gap.
1) no comment. 2) really? because that's the way it seems. for some reason, it is impossible for Mary to have been both Holy virgin Mother of Christ, and yet still have had normal marital relations with her husband. (yes, I know about the EO 'they never got married' thing.) 3) no, it's not uncommon. it IS uncommon among the married though, scriptural, and otherwise.1. your response skips the point
2. your theory that "sex is icky" is a paradigm for the teaching is erroneous
3. chastity is not uncommon in the NT -- consider Christ, John the Baptist, etc
except that you MUST believe it. If it isn't "that big a deal" it shouldn't be a dogma. You MUST believe it to be a "real" Catholic.Sometimes, if I'm moved to. I have a personal devotion to Mary. But, I am not required as a Catholic to have a personal devotion to Mary as a Catholic. That is my choice.
And as I said, it doesn't affect my walk in Christ, which is to be Christ to others. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Be Christ to others?
the fact that we don't believe it's true. AND, that some call it a neccessary belief for Christians. That is all.what is the objection of everyone here about the Even-virginity of Mary....
problem with that line of thinking: Brother could sometimes mean Cousin. Or close relation. Or close friend, or whatever you want.this is not under dispute.
But the same term has different meanings in different cultures.
If you want to know what Christ meant by the terms he used, then one must know something of the culture and what they understood those terms to mean.
Perhaps because Paul never brought it up, but the RCs sure appeared to, just as they did with the Rock being Peter in Matt and built a whole Heirachy around that .what is the objection of everyone here about the Even-virginity of Mary....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?