Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla · Sep 8, 2008

Uphill Battle said:
problem with that line of thinking: Brother could sometimes mean Cousin. Or close relation. Or close friend, or whatever you want.

but sometimes, probably most frequenently, it meant....brother. And it is discarded as such automatically because it COULD be something else.

that is a flawed line of thinking.

Native educated Greek speakers who knew the language are apparently less qualified to understand the term than we are today

Not to mention that native educated speakers of Semitic languages and culture (Ephraim the Syrian 4th c., as an example) are also clueless about their own culture and language.

Even the 2nd. century pagan Celsus, in refuting the "false new religion" of Christianity had to work with what was known in order to discredit Mary -- and he states that she was a spinner (take a look at an icon of the Annunciation), that she fled to Egypt, that she was abandoned by Joseph. And even though showing her to have more than one child would support his argument that she had "loose morals", he identifies only one child - Jesus.

In Celsus, we can see glimpses of 2nd century teachings per Mary.

Philothei · Sep 8, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
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 .

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6419518&page=4
Orthodox vs Catholicism Matt 16:18

Let's not go to that now LLOJ... lol... It is enough trouble...

Mary in the EO tradition is not "big" meaning we have so many other saints to pray to intecede too... She has special honor and all and we do see her as the Mother of all of us who intercedes to her Son as during his life she was very important to Him as He asked John to take care of her... We see that the relationship of Mother and Son was as special as Christ was not ONLY God incarnated but also fully human and he had human feelings. Do you all think Christ had very tender feelings for his mother?

MamaZ · Sep 8, 2008

Thekla said:
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.

God is not a culture God. He is creator God. Therefore His speaking to us is in direct manners. It is easy to understand the scripture when indeed you have who wrote it teaching it to you.

Philothei · Sep 8, 2008

Lol I will be honest with you all ... what gets me laughing sometimes about this issue is the beleif that Christ was somehow a "proffesional" preacher who had no humanity in Him....How so ....see the smaller sentence in the Bible is "Jesus wept" when he was presented with the news of his friend Lazarus who he died... He knew he would ressurect him... My question was in seminary why Christ wept.. then?

Cause he had feelings and seeing the anguish of his family and the reality of death... he wept.... How human and how true... It was a true eyeopener for me to see that Christ was a man (and God ofcourse before anyone accuses me of a heretic) , with ability to cry and to be like one of us.

Also if we all want to see him as a friend and talk to him as such...why are we denying him his mother, as someone who is "unimportant"? What we would do if Chirst came today and ask us to take care of her? what would we do? Are we going to tell Him sorry we do not think she is special? She is not important?

MamaZ · Sep 8, 2008

Philothei said:
I thought so....

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..... You must be speaking of tongues here.

Maybe the Holy Spirit was making a mistake...and it should have not been bothered giving them that gift then... I think God wants us to "know" as much about His word as possible...it is important to our salvation.

He wants us to know His word. Not know about His word. God has made sure that the scriptures have been given to us in our language. I don't know if the bible has been translated into all languages but for the english speaking it has been and the Spanish. That is why God meant what He said in the OT and said what He meant in the NT.

Philothei · Sep 8, 2008

MamaZ said:
God is not a culture God. He is creator God. Therefore His speaking to us is in direct manners. It is easy to understand the scripture when indeed you have who wrote it teaching it to you.

You all bypassed my post about the pentacost... so speaking tongues was truly unimportant them...right?

If he is speaking to us directly then what was the need of the Apostles and their speaking languages... So...when we do mission in Mexico .... people can read it in english and understand it? wow... where in the Bible says we can read it in another language and understand it as it has that magical effect on people... Also denying the gift of languages that the Holy spirit gave us... as it is unessarary then again you are not reading my posts...

katholikos · Sep 8, 2008

MamaZ said:
He wants us to know His word. Not know about His word. God has made sure that the scriptures have been given to us in our language. I don't know if the bible has been translated into all languages but for the english speaking it has been and the Spanish. That is why God meant what He said in the OT and said what He meant in the NT.

Wow. Can't argue with that logic.

MamaZ · Sep 8, 2008

Philothei said:
Lol I will be honest with you all ... what gets me laughing sometimes about this issue is the beleif that Christ was somehow a "proffesional" preacher who had no humanity in Him....How so ....see the smaller sentence in the Bible is "Jesus wept" when he was presented with the news of his friend Lazarus who he died... He knew he would ressurect him... My question was in seminary why Christ wept.. then?

Cause he had feelings and seeing the anguish of his family and the reality of death... he wept.... How human and how true... It was a true eyeopener for me to see that Christ was a man, with ability to cry and to be like one of us.

Also if we all want to see him as a friend and talk to him as such...why are we denying him his mother, as someone who is "unimportant"? What we would do if Chirst came today and ask us to take care of her? what would we do? Are we going to tell Him sorry we do not think she is special? She is not important?

Not any one here has ever said she wasn't important. John did as Jesus asked. Mary does not need our protection now for she is no longer here to protect. She is with Christ Her savior.

sunlover1 · Sep 8, 2008

Philothei said:
Lol I will be honest with you all ... what gets me laughing sometimes about this issue is the beleif that Christ was somehow a "proffesional" preacher who had no humanity in Him....How so ....see the smaller sentence in the Bible is "Jesus wept" when he was presented with the news of his friend Lazarus who he died... He knew he would ressurect him... My question was in seminary why Christ wept.. then?

Cause he had feelings and seeing the anguish of his family and the reality of death... he wept.... How human and how true... It was a true eyeopener for me to see that Christ was a man (and God ofcourse before anyone accuses me of a heretic) , with ability to cry and to be like one of us.

Except if you reread it, it's not why He wept. It's why the
Jews 'thought' that He wept, but from my perspective that's
not at all the reason.

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping,
and the Jews also weeping which came with her,
he groaned in the spirit, and was troubledb,
34 And said, Where have ye laid him?
They said unto him, Lord, come and see.
35 Jesus wept.
36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
37 And some of them said,
Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind,
have caused that even this man should not have died?
38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave.
It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone.
Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him,
Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee,
that, if thou wouldest believe,
thou shouldest see the glory of God?
41 Then they took away the stone...http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=48513239#_ftn2
b was troubled: Gr. he troubled himself

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=48513239#_ftnref2

It appears that His groaning and weeping was
because of their unbelief and lack of faith in
him, in God, to do what He said He'd do.
It's only logical, because He wouldnt weep
for His friend's death! Death is a 'good' thing.

IMO
sunlover

Philothei · Sep 8, 2008

sunlover1 said:
Except if you reread it, it's not why He wept. It's why the
Jews 'thought' that He wept, but from my perspective that's
not at all the reason.

33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping,
and the Jews also weeping which came with her,
he groaned in the spirit, and was troubledb,
34 And said, Where have ye laid him?
They said unto him, Lord, come and see.
35 Jesus wept.
36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
37 And some of them said,
Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind,
have caused that even this man should not have died?
38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave.
It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.
39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone.
Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him,
Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.
40 Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee,
that, if thou wouldest believe,
thou shouldest see the glory of God?
41 Then they took away the stone...
b was troubled: Gr. he troubled himself

It appears that His groaning and weeping was
because of their unbelief and lack of faith in
him, in God, to do what He said He'd do.
It's only logical, because He wouldnt weep
for His friend's death! Death is a 'good' thing.

IMO
sunlover

It makes it seem like Christ was "troubled" because he saw them weeping and somehow he wanted them to be "more than human" and not weep??? So instead he weeped for them???

I do not agree with your explanation.. Then again this is a passage that you need to see culture... Jews were wailing and beating their chests during funerals... typical semitic people do that you know...

Seeing his friend's sisters like that he would get angry to the point of judging them (in their pain) and also weep out of anger???

As Christ nears the tomb of His friend, we have the shortest verse in the Scriptures, “Jesus wept.” He wept for His friend Lazarus who had died. He wept for those mourning the death of Lazarus. He wept for the human condition, for the fact that we all must suffer death. Christ wept for all of mankind, and what He came to offer us (life), He bestowed again on Lazarus when He called him forth from the tomb. Lazarus would later die again, he wasn’t given everlasting life by this resurrection. He was raised to continue with life in the fallen world. But the raising of Lazarus showed that words of Christ were true. He has power over life and death. He is the resurrection and the life, and in Him we live forever.

Christ wept because he knew that death and bodily corruption is off the devil and he felt sorry for us and our humanity, as he knew being a human how hard that is to deal with...He empathized with us and he cried...

It is like seeing a sad movie... you know it is just a movie but still we cry do we?? Do we cry as we get upset as the characters of the movie and we cry? no we cry because we empathize with the characters...of the movie...That is what happened with Christ ... IMO, althought they were still his friends... not some strangers......so even more so...

Thekla · Sep 8, 2008

MamaZ said:
Not any one here has ever said she wasn't important. John did as Jesus asked. Mary does not need our protection now for she is no longer here to protect. She is with Christ Her savior.

I think Abraham was special -- God saved Lot because of the earnest prayer of his uncle. I think Moses was special -- he sojourned with God, but when he returned, seeing just the light on his face (dimmer than the light that Moses saw, I would think) he was asked to cover it. I think John the Baptist was special; so earnestly did he dedicate himself to God's call that he ate only locusts and wild honey. I think Paul was special - as Saul, he breathed hatred for the Christians. Yet so earnestly did he love Christ, that he pointed out that one should not be like those who sought circumcision to avoid the persecution given to those being identified as Christian (and himself suffered martyrdom). I'm nowhere that capable. And Mary was the mother of Jesus -- I am no way a perfect mother, but to have such a child - I cannot imagine.

Philothei · Sep 8, 2008

It appears that His groaning and weeping was
because of their unbelief and lack of faith in
him, in God, to do what He said He'd do.
It's only logical, because He wouldnt weep
for His friend's death! Death is a 'good' thing.

the gospel does not say anything about lack of faith... so when being human is lack of faith? Death is a good thing? I do not think so... Death and corruption of the body is not "our normal state" but we suffer death because or our corruptibility due to the fall. Man was not created to die but for immortality... Death is the sepertion of Body and spirit with the hope of the bodily resuretion in the second coming. Man is still impcomplete after his death. As his soul goes to heaven for partial judgment...

Thekla · Sep 8, 2008

despite all the (false) claims that EO/RC teach that "sex is icky":

Images of a semi-nude Mary breastfeeding can be traced back to early Christian times and were popular during the Renaissance period of the Middle Ages.

But they came to an abrupt end around the 16th or 17th century with the emergence of Calvinism and other dour Protestant faiths that viewed representations of 'sexuality' as essentially sinful.

and the west still considers public breastfeeding scandalous

Brennin · Sep 8, 2008

Philothei said:
what is the objection of everyone here about the Even-virginity of Mary....

It is antithetical to scripture. That's my objection.

katholikos · Sep 8, 2008

Brennin said:
It is antithetical to scripture. That's my objection.

No its not. Nowhere does the Bible say the Mary and Joseph consumated their marriage, and the so-called brothers of Jesus are just relatives.

And please don't quote those "until" verses, becuase I can quote verses that refute them,

Brennin · Sep 8, 2008

Thekla said:
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

"Sex is icky" quite clearly underlies the false doctrines concerning Mary. I have no problem with Christians who choose to abstain from intercourse, in fact I congratulate them, but Mary was not one of them.

Thekla · Sep 8, 2008

Brennin said:
"Sex is icky" quite clearly underlies the false doctrines concerning Mary. I have no problem with Christians who choose to abstain from intercourse, in fact I congratulate them, but Mary was not one of them.

where is your supporting argument ?
may be true in the "dour Calvinist" (as in the article above) circles, but don't mistake your culture for others please

Brennin · Sep 8, 2008

katholikos said:
No its not. Nowhere does the Bible say the Mary and Joseph consumated their marriage, and the so-called brothers of Jesus are just relatives.

And please don't quote those "until" verses, becuase I can quote verses that refute them,

Your inability to accept clear scriptural teaching is not my problem. If Christ's brothers were really "cousins" then the authors of the gospels would have used anepsios.

Thekla · Sep 8, 2008

wow, with just a little Greek and 1600 years of "advancement", we can outstrip the likes of Chrysostom in knowledge of Koine Greek.

now thats progress !

katholikos · Sep 8, 2008

Brennin said:
Your inability to accept clear scriptural teaching is not my problem. If Christ's brothers were really "cousins" then the authors of the gospels would have used anepsios.

No they wouldn't becuase they were Jews, and Jews called their near relatives "brothers." Why would a Jew start speaking like a Greek just because he's writing in Greek? If I wrote a letter in French, I'd still talk like an American.

Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla

Guest

Love never fails

MamaZ

Guest

Love never fails

MamaZ

Guest

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

Beloved, Let us love one another

Love never fails

Thekla

Guest

Love never fails

Thekla

Guest

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Well-Known Member

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Thekla

Guest

Wielder of the Holy Cudgel of Faith

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency