Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

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?

I agree

people do amazing things - it melts the heart, if we bother to look,
God is good !

The passage you requested is in Luke chapter 1, and begins at about verse 26.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree

people do amazing things - it melts the heart, if we bother to look,
God is good !

The passage you requested is in Luke chapter 1, and begins at about verse 26.

Greetings Thekla!! Luke 2:34 and Reve 11:11 are also pretty interesting passages as the "resurrection" is pretty important in Christ-ian Theology

Luke 2:34 And blesses them, Simon, and said toward Mariam, the mother of Him, "Lo, this-one is set/lying for the Falling and Ressurection/ana-stasin <386> in many to-the Israel, and into a Sign spoken against"-- [Ezekiel 37:10]

Reve 11:11 And after the three days and half a spirit/breath of life out of the God into-came in them, and they stand/e-sthsan <2476> (5627) upon their feet, and great fear falls upon those seeing them. [Reve 20:5]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

So, how does that acknowledgment that the term could equally mean "brother" as well as "cousin" dogmatically substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, and how does it substantiate that the spreading of a report about Mary's supremely private, intimate, martial relationship is distinctively LOVING (the point of this thread)?








.

 

[lionroar0]

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.​

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

Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.

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?

Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.

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.

Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.

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

Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.

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.

Back to spreading rumors.

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?

Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.

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.

Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.

Peace​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.




Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.



Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.



Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.



Back to spreading rumors.



Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.



Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.

Nice evasions, but how does any of that dogmatically substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, and how does any of what you posted substantiate that it is distinctively LOVING to spread around this report about her most private, intimate, personal aspect of her marital relationship?











.

 

[Philothei]

and how does any of what you posted substantiate that it is distinctively LOVING to spread around this report about her most private, intimate, personal aspect of her marital relationship?

You can drop this too as a red herring... It would be wise for you to bring forth actual discussion on the issue...

 

[Weird]

I speak lovingly but what does these appartions had to do with speaking lovingly? I can speak lovingly of anyone who never appeared after death....

 

[Sphinx777]

I speak lovingly but what does these appartions had to do with speaking lovingly? I can speak lovingly of anyone who never appeared after death....

Have you noticed this thread...

Marian Apparitions...

 

[Thekla]

So, how does that acknowledgment that the term could equally mean "brother" as well as "cousin" dogmatically substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, and how does it substantiate that the spreading of a report about Mary's supremely private, intimate, martial relationship is distinctively LOVING (the point of this thread)?




.

1. A survey of LXX usage as well as the Hellenistic usage (which overlap),
there are easily over half a dozen meanibgs for the word, of which brother and cousin are two. This does not substantiate dogma, but weighs heavily against the narrow use for adelphos as sibling.

2. A careful reading of the passages in Luke describing the interaction between Mary and Gabriel establishes two options if one is to hold the narrow meaning 'sibling' for adelphos:
a. the Bible is in error
b. Mary lied

3. A knowledge of Hebraic culture contemporary with the era of the Gospel
yields information which sheds further light on the "adelphos passages":
a. children were rarely if ever named for their parents; the adelphos named Joses/Joseph is most likely not a child of Joseph, hence the term adelphos in its broad usage is the most accurate descriptive
b. unless Mary was an adulteress, Christ would have been "bearing false witness" against Mary by leaving her in the care of one who was not her son.
c. households were combined upon the death of the primary male provider; had Joseph died before the time of Christ's ministry, the term adelphos refers to household not immediate parentage.

4. the witness of the anti-Christian pagan, Celsus, indicates a teaching or knowledge that Mary was the biological mother of a single child (and that Joseph likely died some time before the ministry of Christ commenced).

5. Tradition held by three ancient Churches (in spite of later schism) attest that Mary was the mother of one child.

the weight of the evidence is decisevely against the claim that adelphos clearly means 'sibling'

the EO/OO/RC use "Tradition" as the canon for measuring and authentication - the evidence described above strongly supports the teaching per Mary as it stands.

 

[MamaZ]

I see in scripture where she was the mother of more than one Child. Taking the context of the scripture and to which the word was placed an all. Since these brothers of Jesus followed Mary wherever she went. Taking that even the men tell Jesus that His mother and brothers are waiting outside for Him and He says who is my mother, brother and sisters, and then He says that all that does the will of His Father are His mother,brother and sisters.. I don't see anyone in the Christain circle calling fellow believers by saying Hey cuz hows it going.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

the EO/OO/RC use "Tradition" as the canon for measuring and authentication - the evidence described above strongly supports the teaching per Mary as it stands.

:o Darn........

Ephesian 3:17 To dwell the Christ thru the Faith in the hearts of ye in Love, having been rooted and having been founded, 18 That ye should be being strong to be grasping/apprehending together to all the Saints what the breadth and length and height and depth ,
19 To know the transcending of the knowledge love of the Christ , that ye may be being filled into all filling of the God/YHWH

Reve 21:15 And the one talking with me had *measure/metron reed, golden, that he should be measuring the City and the gates of Her and the Wall of Her
17 And he measures the Wall of Her, hundred forty four of cubits, measure of a Man/anqrwpou <444> , which is of a Messenger. [Ephesians 3:17-19]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. A survey of LXX usage as well as the Hellenistic usage (which overlap),
there are easily over half a dozen meanibgs for the word, of which brother and cousin are two. This does not substantiate dogma, but weighs heavily against the narrow use for adelphos as sibling.

1. It also weighs heavily against the sole meaning of "cousin." Others interpretation of it as "brother" becomes just as valid (perhaps more so given other Scriptures).

2. You may not be aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS dogma, therefore, it needs dogmatic substantiation.

3. You may also not be aware that there is no dogma of Mary Had One Child. I think you might be confusing this with the dogma in 3 denominations of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The dogma is not sibs, it's about sex. The dogma is that Mary had no sex, not that Jesus had no sibs .

2. A careful reading of the passages in Luke describing the interaction between Mary and Gabriel establishes two options if one is to hold the narrow meaning 'sibling' for adelphos:
a. the Bible is in error
b. Mary lied

No. A careful reading of the passage in Luke indicates that Mary is told she WILL conceive and bear a son, and that Mary is confused because she IS a virgin. There is nothing in the text that says that Mary is/will be a PERPETUAL virgin.

3. A knowledge of Hebraic culture contemporary with the era of the Gospel
yields information which sheds further light on the "adelphos passages":
a. children were rarely if ever named for their parents; the adelphos named Joses/Joseph is most likely not a child of Joseph, hence the term adelphos in its broad usage is the most accurate descriptive
b. unless Mary was an adulteress, Christ would have been "bearing false witness" against Mary by leaving her in the care of one who was not her son.
c. households were combined upon the death of the primary male provider; had Joseph died before the time of Christ's ministry, the term adelphos refers to household not immediate parentage.

1. This all seems entirely moot to the issue of Mary had no sex ever.

2. Unusual situations does not equal dogmatic substantiation. Sons may or may not be named for their father (remember John the Baptist?). There was no law or absolute custom that mothers be entrusted to sons - it was usual, but not absolute. And how does that dogmaticly substantiate that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' death????

4. the witness of the anti-Christian pagan, Celsus, indicates a teaching or knowledge that Mary was the biological mother of a single child (and that Joseph likely died some time before the ministry of Christ commenced).

5. Tradition held by three ancient Churches (in spite of later schism) attest that Mary was the mother of one child.

Actually, the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was proclaimed in the late 7th Century. And again, even IF Mary had no other children that has NOTHING to do with Mary having no sex ever - thus provides ZERO substantiation for the dogma, much less dogmatic substantiation.







.

 

[Thekla]

1. It also weighs heavily against the sole meaning of "cousin." Others interpretation of it as "brother" becomes just as valid (perhaps more so given other Scriptures).

neither retains sole validity;and further, given the fluidity of household arrangements, the use of adelphos ceases to be conclusive evidence of any particular relationship.

2. You may not be aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS dogma, therefore, it needs dogmatic substantiation.

I am not RC

3. You may also not be aware that there is no dogma of Mary Had One Child. I think you might be confusing this with the dogma in 3 denominations of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The dogma is not sibs, it's about sex. The dogma is that Mary had no sex, not that Jesus had no sibs

.

it is evidence of limited childbearing, and goes to the use of adelphos






No. A careful reading of the passage in Luke indicates that Mary is told she WILL conceive and bear a son, and that Mary is confused because she IS a virgin. There is nothing in the text that says that Mary is/will be a PERPETUAL virgin.

please refer to previous posts on the matter;should a future marriage assume relations between spouses in hope or anticipation of childbearing (or not), her statement becomes a lie.

again, Gabriel speaks in the future tense about something that would normally occur in a marriage; Mary denies that this can happen (in the continuous tense which includes the future).








1. This all seems entirely moot to the issue of Mary had no sex ever.

2. Unusual situations does not equal dogmatic substantiation. Sons may or may not be named for their father (remember John the Baptist?). There was no law or absolute custom that mothers be entrusted to sons - it was usual, but not absolute. And how does that dogmaticly substantiate that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' death????

the manner of substantiation for dogma has been reiterated here ad nauseum; absent proof that we must align with your personal canon for
the iteration of dogma, the point is moot






Actually, the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was proclaimed in the late 7th Century. And again, even IF Mary had no other children that has NOTHING to do with Mary having no sex ever - thus provides ZERO substantiation for the dogma, much less dogmatic substantiation.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. It also weighs heavily against the sole meaning of "cousin." Others interpretation of it as "brother" becomes just as valid (perhaps more so given other Scriptures).

neither retains sole validity;and further, given the fluidity of household arrangements, the use of adelphos ceases to be conclusive evidence of any particular relationship.

Thus, your position is unsubstantiated. By your own admission, you have no conclusive evidence of anything - much less dogmatic evidence of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin.

2. You may not be aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS dogma, therefore, it needs dogmatic substantiation.

<b>
</b>I am not RC

<b>

Surely, you are aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is DOGMA in the EO, too.




</b> .

 

[Rick Otto]

b. unless Mary was an adulteress, Christ would have been "bearing false witness" against Mary by leaving her in the care of one who was not her son.

Not necessarily. Especialy not after him saying this:
Matthew 12:46-50 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

I am not RC
[/QUOTE

He said "it needs substantiation", not "you need to substantiate it".

 

[lionroar0]

Not necessarily. Especialy not after him saying this:
Matthew 12:46-50 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

I am not RC
[/QUOTE

He said "it needs substantiation", not "you need to substantiate it".

He said it needs dogmatic substatiation.(sp?)

Now all we need is a defenition(sp?) of dogmatic substantiation.

But then the RCC Dogma of Mary's Ever-Virginity is an article of faith for Catholics.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Nice evasions, but how does any of that dogmatically substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, and how does any of what you posted substantiate that it is distinctively LOVING to spread around this report about her most private, intimate, personal aspect of her marital relationship?



.

Not evading anything. IF you want an intelligent debate then I suggest to actually respond to what people post instead of throwing out red herrings.

Peace

 

[Philothei]

2. You may not be aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS dogma, therefore, it needs dogmatic substantiation.

Surely, you are aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is DOGMA in the EO, too.

And Thekla said:

the EO/OO/RC use "Tradition" as the canon for measuring and authentication - the evidence described above strongly supports the teaching per Mary as it stands.

We do not need any scriptural substantiation as the council (see bellow) and the Fathers prove to the Ever-virginity... Just the same way the Protestants accept the Holy Trinity after examining the Scripture and find certain verses that support the dogma.

Likewise for us the Fathers looking at the scriptural evidence present the dogmas or canons and the councils radify them....

BTW it was the second coucil of Nicea that radified the Ever -virginity ....But it was first intoduced in this at an earlier century... You are off Josiah...sorry.

The Second Council of Constantinople, 553, Capitula II:
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.[6]

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos

 

[Rick Otto]

Me too. Be sorry for me too because I am definitely in the "anethema" category on PV.

We do not need any scriptural substantiation as the council (see bellow) and the Fathers prove to the Ever-virginity... Just the same way the Protestants accept the Holy Trinity after examining the Scripture and find certain verses that support the dogma.

How is your not needing scriptural substantiation just like Protestants finding scriptural substantiation for the Trinity?

 

[Thekla]

Not necessarily. Especialy not after him saying this:
Matthew 12:46-50 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

I am not RC

I think within the Christian community, it would not be a problem. However, in the larger community, this would have left Mary vulnerable (especially, with the early persecutions, doubly vulnerable).
He said "it needs substantiation", not "you need to substantiate it".

I'm the wrong one to ask on this point