Speak lovingly of Mary

[sunlover1]

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???

You read that? Thats not what I said.
My explaination was poor because I
figured it was pretty plain if you
meditate right on the passage itself.

I do not agree with your explanation..

Perhaps because you already have presuppositions.
It's clear as day to me because why would Jesus ever
be sad about the death when He knew it was temporary,
and He knew He'd raise Lazerus immediately after...
But it's the text itself that makes me understand it
the way I do. His Words.
He said, "Did i NOT tell you??"
He was sad alright, but not over His friends nap.
(IMO)

But I dont mind if we disagree, and in fact, I am
almost sure that not one person would agree with
me, so no worries friend.

 

[Brennin]

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.

That's a specious argument, especially since the gospels are anonymous.

 

[simonthezealot]

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.

Hey Brennin...where ya been?

 

[Philothei]

but Mary was not one of them.

well well well and your support to this from scripture...is... ???

where? How much do you know historically that they consumated their marriage? becaus the scripture is moot about that.

 

[simonthezealot]

I am almost sure that not one person would agree with
me,

I do for the most part.... haven't seen to many differing views anyway I don't remember the last do you?

 

[Philothei]

Perhaps because you already have presuppositions.

not as much as you do ? or lesser or more? I think Iwould just let it be that we disagree.

 

[Philothei]

I do for the most part.... haven't seen to many differing views anyway I don't remember the last do you?

so you agree just for the sake of agreeing....nice going Zealot

 

[simonthezealot]

"sex is icky"

Na ahh...

 

[Kristos]

.

 

[simonthezealot]

so you agree just for the sake of agreeing....nice going Zealot

I was saying that sl1's view of scripture and her interpretation is quite similar to mine, in honesty i haven't read this thread and have become vastly bored with all the marianity topics.

 

[simonthezealot]

.

:o I laughed though...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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 !

The Koine Greek is NEET. Lotz better than da Latin

Hosea 4:6 They are stilled, people of Me, from lack of the Knowledge, that you, the Knowledge you reject.
And I am rejecting you to be Priests to Me. And you are forgetting law of Elohiym of you I shall forget sons of you, moreover I. [Luke 11:52

Daniel 12:4 And thou Daniye'l, stop-up! the words, and seal! the Scroll till time of end. They shall to and fro, many ones, and The Knowledge/01847 da`ath shall abound.

Luke 11:52 `Woe to ye, the Lawyers, that ye take away the Key of the Knowledge yourselves not ye-enter; and of the ones entering, ye hinder/forbid' [Hosea 4:6]

 

[Uphill Battle]

well well well and your support to this from scripture...is... ???

where? How much do you know historically that they consumated their marriage? becaus the scripture is moot about that.

other than the disputable scripture about the siblings of Christ... none.

but frankly... don't you think that evidence has to be provided when things go AGAINST the normal, as opposed to vice versa?

 

[Philothei]

That's a specious argument, especially since the gospels are anonymous.

what has anonimity got to do with language? The ones written in Greek especially Luke and the Acts are in impecable Greek... and for sure attributed to Luke so what it has to do with what Katholikos is saying?

Futhrer more in Greek it is the same... Paul called the Brethren "adelfoi": so that means the congregation were his actual brothers??? A lot of times in Greek those terms were used that way. The mistake or the new idea of the interpretation of brother as adelfos was introduced in the late 6th century and the information was never proved valid based on gnostic writings...

Also if Mary had brothers according to jewish custom Christ should have put his brothers in change of Mary's care so that again testifies that he had no brothers but put John in charge...Expalin this you all.....

 

[Philothei]

don't you think that evidence has to be provided when things go AGAINST the normal, as opposed to vice versa?

No, because evidence needs to be brought foward by all parties bringing in an opinion not only the ones who agree with it... Since the Bible is where you all "test" all things conserning Christ's life point to us where it says that Mary indeed had relations with Joseph...And as Katholicos said that her actual marriage is only "refered to" not described even as an actual event...

Circular we go again.... or is this dezevous(do not know french sorry UB).....

 

[Uphill Battle]

sigh.... Adelphos means brothers. It could mean cousin, kin, bretheren... or actually if could mean siblings!

the problem with the hermenutic of "It sometimes means this, therefore it doesn't mean this" is a flawed logic.

if sometimes a=b, that does not mean that a must not equal C. the only way you could argue that is if A ALWAYS=b, therefore never C.

the apologetic that Jesus must put Mary in the care of siblings if he had any is specious. Jesus was dying on the Cross. We have a record that John, one of his closest friends, was there. and his Mother was there. NO record exists of his brothers being there.

he took care of his mother by giving her in to the care of the one he trusted most that was nearby. What would you have Christ do? I put Mary into the care of my brothers.... they aren't here? ok, I'll wait.

that is remarkably silly.

 

[sunlover1]

I do for the most part.... haven't seen to many differing views anyway I don't remember the last do you?

You've seen that too?

Too cool.
I think that it's commonly taught from the pul-pits that
Jesus was sad because His friend died.

not as much as you do ? or lesser or more? I think Iwould just let it be that we disagree.

didnt mean to make you mad.
No mine isnt a presupposition since it's not commonly taught,
at least I've always heard the story you shared earlier.
But like I said, IMO it's not logical given the God we know.

yes, we disagree, doubt it's the last time.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, because evidence needs to be brought foward by all parties bringing in an opinion not only the ones who agree with it... Since the Bible is where you all "test" all things conserning Christ's life point to us where it says that Mary indeed had relations with Joseph...And as Katholicos said that her actual marriage is only "refered to" not described even as an actual event...

Circular we go again.... or is this dezevous(do not know french sorry UB).....

guess we can't assume that water was wet and the sky was blue back then either.. because it doesn't say.

we ARE allowed to think, and come to relatively simple conclusions.

 

[Philothei]

Na ahh...

this topic is too much for you guys you can come into this later....

 

[Philothei]

we ARE allowed to think, and come to relatively simple conclusions.

Yes about the sky though and mandane things sure I undestand but about matters such as these ones that can go either way... The bible is moot... like it is moot in whether Joseph was blond...or not we cannot tell although we can deduce that being a jew his hair would be dark... Does this though makes too much of a difference ...no... But when it a matter of faith and people such as yourself who do not accept any traditiont than the Bible is our only route... You set the same standards to us... so why complain now?