Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
How funny this is. Prophecy is usally for a future event. She was not married and how long was it before she conceived do you know? We know it was before the wedding ceremony. For she at the time was only betrothed to Joseph. Until Jospeh took her for His wife.

Yes, the prophecy was about the future, and in the future Mary was to be married. Gabriel did not say how long into the future.

In the Greek, what Mary said is properly translated:

"In the past I have not known a man, now I do not know a man, in the future I will not know a man."

(her statement includes the future and is not limited for any point in the future but includes all the future without limit)

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
What does Pure have to do with peretual virgin. For when God looks at us it is not in our sex life but at our heart and one may have a pure heart and still be normally married. For the marriage bed is to be held in honor..

I was showing the more accurate definition of the word, not calling the marriage bed dishonorable

(otherwise, we would call Virgin Olive Oil "no-sex Olive oil")

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
This is interesting. The Douay-Rheims doesn't have John 8:58
But look how the NKJV translates this word in John 8 and Reve 1

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 8:58 Said to them [*the] Jesus "verily, verily I am saying to ye before Abraham to be becoming/genesqai <1096> (5635), I AM

NKJV) John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

cannot find, try: John 7:59 ( Douay-Rheims )

Revelation 1:1 An-un-covering of Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God, to show to His bond-servants, which-things is binding to be becoming/genesqai <1096> (5635), in swiftness.

NKJV) Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place.

thanks, LLoJ !

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

how awesome !

MamaZ · Sep 12, 2008

Thekla said:
I agree, Christ did not worry about what "men say" of Him; but to force Mary into a harmful situation is different. As in the above post , God asks - He doesn't force.

hmm I wonder what Jonah thinks of that statement.

MamaZ · Sep 12, 2008

Thekla said:
I was showing the more accurate definition of the word, not calling the marriage bed dishonorable

(otherwise, we would call Virgin Olive Oil "no-sex Olive oil")

So then what is the reason that one must think Mary had to remain a virign? If purity is from the heart what does Mary having other children have to do with anything?

MamaZ · Sep 12, 2008

Thekla said:
I agree, Christ did not worry about what "men say" of Him; but to force Mary into a harmful situation is different. As in the above post , God asks - He doesn't force.

well if one stands on Christ we are all in harmful situations. Paul can really attest to that since He also was Jewish, Peter killed and martyred for the same reason. Standing on what Christ taught and not what was considered Jewish culture.. We see Stephen being stoned and there stood Saul.. Later known as Paul. By what you say forcing Mary into a harmful situation is that it is God who is our protector. She was in a harmful situation when she indeed conceived Christ our King. Did God not protect her and Joseph and Christ?

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
hmm I wonder what Jonah thinks of that statement.

Jonah accepted the call to be a prophet.

Did God make false statements about Jonah that put Jonah in harms way

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
So then what is the reason that one must think Mary had to remain a virign? If purity is from the heart what does Mary having other children have to do with anything?

why would we claim Mary had other children if she didn't ?

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
well if one stands on Christ we are all in harmful situations. Paul can really attest to that since He also was Jewish, Peter killed and martyred for the same reason. Standing on what Christ taught and not what was considered Jewish culture.. We see Stephen being stoned and there stood Saul.. Later known as Paul. By what you say forcing Mary into a harmful situation is that it is God who is our protector. She was in a harmful situation when she indeed conceived Christ our King. Did God not protect her and Joseph and Christ?

who of those you mention was in danger because of a false statement that Christ made about them ????

LittleLambofJesus · Sep 12, 2008

Thekla said:
Jonah accepted the call to be a prophet.

Did God make false statements about Jonah that put Jonah in harms way

Jonah, Jesus and Paul

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Jonah 3:1 And a word of YHWH is becoming unto Jonah, a second-time, to say, 2 `Rise! go! to Niyn@veh, the city, the great and call to her, the call which I am speaking to thee;'

Matt 12:41 `Men, Ninevites shall be resurrecting in the judging with the generation, this, and they shall be condemning it/her, that they repent/reform into the proclamation of Jonah and Lo! more of Jonah here. [Luke 11:30, 32]

Acts 9:15 Said yet toward him, the Lord , "Be thou going!, that a vessel of election is to Me this-one, of the to bear the Name of Me in before nations and kings--sons besides of Israel".

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 12, 2008

Josiah said:
Josiah said:

How is that known? I have a book in which I read the words, "Shepherd us to that bright place, into fields where joy is ringing." How can you determine, with dogmatic certainty, if that is actually a translation of some other language, and if so, which?

Click to expand...

Now your introducing something new into the argument.

No. Another made a point that the sentance was originally in Aramaic and thus the Aramaic words are normative, not the Greek. You defended this and stated that it can be determined if something is a translation of another language and which original language that was. I'm really lost as to why that matters (since what we HAVE is what we HAVE), but I simply asked you to explain your statement of fact that this can be determined (THEN I'll ask why it matters). I gave you a sentence (I happen to know if it was originally written in English or another language because the author is known to me). I asked you to tell me in what language was the sentence originally written - English or some other, and if some other, which? It's NOT a new argument or point, it's YOUR argument and point - I'm just exploring it.

We are not talking about dogmatic certainty.

Wrong.

In the RCC, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary - these are all DOGMAS.

Josiah said:
Josiah said:

Absolutely, which is why it matters not who penned them. In the words of the Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 136, "The Bible is the very words of God and so there can be no greater credibility. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does this mean? It means that God is the Author of the Bible and its words are His. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished."

Click to expand...

Josiah said:
Josiah said:

[/quote]
We are talking about the Gospels. Not the entire Bible.

Click to expand...

Your point was that the penmen of the BIBLE were "fallible."
I simply quoted for you (verbatim) from The Handbook of the Catholic Faith.
Do you believe that the 4 Gospels are exempt from this?

Josiah said:

Thus, IF Jesus originally spoke these words in some other language (and I want to know how you can dogmatically determine that), then God is the translator of those words. I do not agree with you that you are a better translator than He and that He somehow "goofed."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I never mention that I can dogmatically determine anything.

Click to expand...

You seemed to suggest that the Greek is a poor translation of the "original" Aramaic (you have yet to tell me how it can be dogmatically determined that Jesus spoke this in Aramaic). I don't know why you think God did a poor job of the translation, you haven't explained that point, or why what the singular Catholic denomination "thinks" MIGHT have "originally" been said "trumps" what God put in His Holy Scriptures.

You seem to be forgetting that we ARE discussing DOGMAS in the RCC.

Josiah said:

Now, back to the issue at hand. How is it specifically LOVING to share a story or report which is obviosly unsubstantiated and expremely personal, private and intimate - something you'd not want spread around among billions of people as the most important level of information? How is that specificly LOVING?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I agree. I would never would want to spread the rumor that Mary had other children.

Click to expand...

And dogmatically, no denomination does. But I would think the speading throughout the world's 6.5 billion people of the much, much MORE private and potentially hurtful and embarrassing to DOGMATICALLY insist - as the highest certainty and highest level of importance - how often you and your spouse have sex (or whatever other details of your sex life) MIGHT be regarded by you as inappropriate at best and perhaps an invasion of privacy and, well, none of our business. Friend, the DOGMA is entirely and solely in your camp, among the 3 denominations that teach it. The other 29,997 denominations that Catholics insist exist have no dogma about Mary's sex life. At all.

Is it LOVING for me to tell all 6.5 billion people the details of your sexual relationships with your spouse, especially since I don't know you and have ZERO evidence for anything remotely related to it? AND to regard such as the greatest certainty and the highest level of importance in all the universe? IF not, then why is it for Our Blessed Lady? My INTENTIONS in telling everyone that you and your spouse do it 3.1 times per week MAY be sincere and honorable, but does that change anything?

As it's totally unsubstantiated by the Scriptures and also by history but you seem to have no problem with that.

Click to expand...

I never said that Jesus had any sibs.
NO denomination known to me has a dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs."
Nor is that related to the RCC's Marian Dogmas.

.

MamaZ · Sep 12, 2008

Thekla said:
who of those you mention was in danger because of a false statement that Christ made about them ????

So if Jesus gave Marys care to a spiritual brother you say that He is making a false statment? Mary was in danger of being stoned as an adulteress for being pregnant and it not being Josephs.. And so are you stating then because of this Christ made a false statment about her? Same with Jesus giving Mary's care over to a Spiritual brother?

MamaZ · Sep 12, 2008

Thekla said:
why would we claim Mary had other children if she didn't ?

Why do you say she didn't when the scripture shows us she did and even names them? In fact why put cousin in there or tell the tale that they were step brothers because Joseph was old?

MamaZ · Sep 12, 2008

Where in fact did God even ask Mary if she would ever be so nice would she carry His son?

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
Why do you say she didn't when the scripture shows us she did and even names them? In fact why put cousin in there or tell the tale that they were step brothers because Joseph was old?

the word adelphos has many meanings; one of those meanings is brother

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
Where in fact did God even ask Mary if she would ever be so nice would she carry His son?

do you mean by this either:

1. God forces us ?

2. we do not have will ?

or another option ...

Thekla · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
So if Jesus gave Marys care to a spiritual brother you say that He is making a false statment?

if one of the named adelphos were a son of Mary, then giving her into the care of one who was not her son exhibits that she is an adultress.

Mary was in danger of being stoned as an adulteress for being pregnant and it not being Josephs..

Joseph cared for her because he was instructed to by the messenger (angel) from God, who explained she was not an adulteress (the child was conceived of the Holy Spirit); if Joseph had not agreed to this, she would have been stoned as an adulteress. In fact, Joseph initially wanted to put her away quietly; ie not exhibit what he thought was adultery.

And so are you stating then because of this Christ made a false statment about her? Same with Jesus giving Mary's care over to a Spiritual brother?

I am saying that actions exhibit information; giving her into the care of one who is not her son, if she had sons, exhibits through action that she was an adulteress.

People would have thought (falsely) that Mary was an adulteress if Joseph had not taken care of her; God gave Mary into the care of Joseph so that she was protected - in this way, God protected Mary against false witness (the appearance that she was an adulteress). He did not exhibit or give false witness against her.

MamaZ · Sep 12, 2008

I am saying that actions exhibit information; giving her into the care of one who is not her son, if she had sons, exhibits through action that she was an adulteress.

Just the same as when Mary was Pregnant and it was not Josephs. No difference there.

Rick Otto · Sep 12, 2008

Props to Joseph.
I've seen fathers,... even a single-father, take & raise as their own children of their wives that weren't their own.
I wish their was more known about Joseph.

Where's that Gabriel visits Mary verse?

Rick Otto · Sep 12, 2008

MamaZ said:
Where in fact did God even ask Mary if she would ever be so nice would she carry His son?

Well, it realy doesn't look exactly like a request, I guess.
I found it.
Luke 1:26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
[27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
[28] And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
[29] And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
[30] And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
[32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
[33] And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
[34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
[35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Gabriel mystifies me a bit. He seemed harsh to Elizabeth's husband, striking him dumb for disbelief, compared to Mary. Mary is outspokenly incredulous, but Gabriel dosen't take it as disrespectful like he seemed to with Zacharius' questioning:
18] And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
[19] And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
[20] And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Speak lovingly of Mary

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency