Speak lovingly of Mary

[Philothei]

Not taking one's family to an apostlic mission is quite a different thing than being celibate, as was previously stated. I do not know about Orthodoxy, but celibacy in the Catholic church is defined as being strictly unmarried. If one defines celibacy as having a family but not taking them on an apostlic mission then one is on a very slippery slope in comparing Mary's family life (or lack thereof) to that of the apostles.

Are you asserting that all who receive the Holy Spirit are Apostles? There were about 120 people in the upper room on Pentecost who received the Holy Spirit and, following Peter's sermon on the same day about 3,000 others received the Holy Spirit. Both scripture and Tradition have stated that Christ appointed only twelve Apostles.

It was "impossed" celibacy not "legally proven" but the result was the same. YOu want to dispute that point you can if you want but still you wil not find any evidence that they "could" be taking their families but "chose" not to take them....Living the rest of your life in a "non-marital" relation... does not qualify them as celibants? Then the apostles morals should be questioned? Your call...If you want to dis-credit their reputation I do not even doubt their morality..What I say is that they lived years until their death away from their families. Those days they had no planes to catch to go and visit...But please go as much as illogical you want with that ...be my guest..

yeah the appointed were the 12 I do not see where I stated otherwise..

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not really. As far as prophecy goes, this is pretty direct. Most prophecies concern Christ Himself are no more direct, yet are fully embraced. When coupled with supporting data like the Protoevangelium, then it's very clear. The OT Scritpures hit the point in all three area - the Law, see story of Jacob's ladder, Mary is prefigured by the ladder and the house and the gate. The Prophets - Ezekiel, Mary as the house and the gate that will be shut. And the Wisdom - Proverbs 9, again we see the house that wisdom built. These are all harmonized in the orthodox church as pointing to Mary's PV. This is attested to through the ages as the Truth, as shown in my last post - from the 1st century until present. Oddly, from a historical perspective, there was more controversy over the divinity of Christ than this.

I do not know of any direct or indirect scripture that would support the opposing view.

I do not know of any ECF that held the opposing view (except Tertullian, but calling him a true ECF might be a stretch).

I do not know of any apocryphal work that holds the opposing view.

My goodness, what a low view of prophecy you hold! I expected much better from you. The New Testament references to Old Testament prophecies are typically very direct. Thus it was that when the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah 53 he readily accepted Philip's message of the gospel.

As you are well aware, there are multitudes of fanciful interpretations of scripture. We should not accept any unless they are given interpretation by scripture itself. Sadly, the alleged prophecies that you have cited fall into this category. They are no more valid than believing, as some have done, that Napoleon Bounaparte was the AntiChrist, based on similarities between certain prophetic scriptures and his biography.

 

[Philothei]

Of what? That you have no proof? The only proof you have is proof that the opinion existed, nothing substantial for basing opinion on, only speculation on symboolic meanings of vaguely relevant passag

Neither do you about the Trinity...at least here the text is consistant and precisely the simple present signifies that it is an action that has permancy... in time...and through time...

No one is asking you to.

The name or who coined it is incidental to the illustrated facts substantiated at Jesus' baptism. No scriptures give similar substantiation
of PV.

No proof on that either.

Me? What do I call the same? Same as what?

Like I say, it doesn't matter what word is used or who came up with it. A rose by any other name is still a rose. It is what it is & what it is, is literaly & explicitly described in scripture, unlike PV.

Well, then call it something else... cause that is what the ECF call it. Dare you call it Three gods then.... I am sure you will not...as it teaches polytheism....Adopting the defense agaisnt it by the ECF ha? And explaining it you will not use the three persons in a Godhead? You will and did Christ talk about it? No... so there "borrowing" dogma... that is the biggest inconsistency trully ....

"Trinity" is a descriptive word. I accept it because what it describes is clearly seen in scripture, not because it was used by the ECF. PV is not clearly seen in scripture, so I don't accept it from any source.

You accept it because your tradition tell you it is right...How about defending though?

The folly is in thinking they are parallel to begin with.
I pick & choose based on scriptural substantiation.

Folly is that you deny purposely to see the prallel...

& Even if I do accept an entire canon (Bible) that was supposedly determined by tradition, you cannot assume it is because I accept tradition. It may meet other crieria I have that you aren't aware of or aren't considering.

like? No criteria other than faith in that tradition and ultimately to God...

Oral tradition always came first and then written... The bible did not fell off the sky...

 

[bbbbbbb]

The dogma of HT is very similar to the EV as the word is not mentioned in the NT... It was brought up as an example of "modern Churches" who are inconsistent with the HT dogma ... There is nowhere to be found in the Bible... the same as Pv... period. It is a prallel dogma and it shares the same ....No "direct" proof... in theBible... go figure.. My intent was not to discuss the HT. You do not want to deal with it admit it...just do not discard it.

I am posting on this thread because the thread is about Mary, not the Holy Trinity. I am not "discarding" the Holy Trinity as you assert, but I will readily admit that I "deal" with it (the doctrine of the Holy Trinity) not on this thread, but on those which address that doctrine.

We could endlessly derail this thread by pointing out inconsistencies of many churches, modern as well as Traditional. I would rather not derail the thread, but keep to the OP.

 

[Thekla]

Thank you, Thekla, for your excellent response. I understand your reasoning. I believe, however, there is a third possibility here. That is the actual use of the Greek language by the three Gospel writers in question. As is generally known, Mark's command of the Greek language was weak. It is evident that it was a second language for him. It would be the same if I were to write a book in German, which is not my native language. This lack of clear understanding could mean that the intended understanding, as you have noted, was that of kinsman or cousin. However, the context of the passages renders that interpretation to be weak, as I have noted previously because of Christ calling His followers His mother, brothers, and sisters. There is no argument over the translation of mother as being anything other than His biological mother. Nor, do I think there should be an argument over the translation of brothers and sisters as being anything other than that. However, this is my opinion, for what it is worth.

hi, bbbbbbb,

actually, I think the rhetorical turn employed by Christ (in the use of mother, adelphos, adelphi) broadens the terminolgy, but fails to retrospectively narrow the use of adelphos. We can only have one birth-mother - with whom we share blood, whose womb (mitra - H/Koine Greek) we inhabit for a time. Yet Christ says we may all be His mother ?

Relationship with God is one of the overiding themes of both testaments (OT and NT). So, Christ says relationship; remember: suyenis, adelphos, etc. all refer to not only kin, but also the like-minded, countrymen, tribe etc. The Jews were "related" to God, of God, without regard to narrow descriptive (mother, brother, cousin, etc -- only tribe or countrymen remains as an accurate descriptive). With the coming of Christ, God is available, is to be known to all nations/ethnoi. All can become "of His people".



Again, Christ does not provide information to narrow the terminology; given the cultural realities of household composition, any number of relationships could have existed in the group described as adelphos. Only one could be described as mother.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It was "impossed" celibacy not "legally proven" but the result was the same. YOu want to dispute that point you can if you want but still you wil not find any evidence that they "could" be taking their families but "chose" not to take them....Living the rest of your life in a "non-marital" relation... does not qualify them as celibants? Then the apostles morals should be questioned? Your call...If you want to dis-credit their reputation I do not even doubt their morality..What I say is that they lived years until their death away from their families. Those days they had no planes to catch to go and visit...But please go as much as illogical you want with that ...be my guest..

yeah the appointed were the 12 I do not see where I stated otherwise..

"Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" I Corinthians 9:5.

Paul makes it clear in this verse that these married men (Apostles, brothers (there's that nasty word again) of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter)) were taking their wives with them on their apostolic missions. So much for abandoning them and going off as a celibate missionariy. I think their morals would definitely be questioned if they abandoned their wives and families.

I am glad that you agree that there were only twelve apostles and that excludes Mary from being an apostle. Earlier you had stated that she shared the apostolic gift.

 

[Philothei]

I am glad that you agree that there were only twelve apostles and that excludes Mary from being an apostle. Earlier you had stated that she shared the apostolic gift.

She is called "equal to the Apostles" as other women did .... too Thekla was an Apostle as well as Mary Magdalene...what ? we discriminate against women disciples now? I think not.. If not with a big A we are all apostles since baptism does enforce to us that calling of Apostleship.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Philothei; Neither do you about the Trinity...at least here the text is consistant and precisely the simple present signifies that it is an action that has permancy... in time...and through time...

The Trinity substantiation is in the verse about Jesus' baptism. The three distinct manifistations are present & don't rely on parsing a tense for clarity.
The context of the situation limits the relevance of the text.

"No scriptures give similar substantiation
of PV."
No proof on that either.

The fact none exist is proof.

Well, then call it something else... cause that is what the ECF call it.

No need to. You are wandering off into irrelevancy once again, mam'.

Dare you call it Three gods then.... I am sure you will not...as it teaches polytheism....Adopting the defense agaisnt it by the ECF ha? And explaining it you will not use the three persons in a Godhead? You will and did Christ talk about it? No... so there "borrowing" dogma... that is the biggest inconsistency trully ....

Scripture talks about. Did I mention Jesus' baptism?

You accept it because your tradition tell you it is right...How about defending though?

I accept it because I see it at Jesus' baptism. Did I forget to say anything about that?

Folly is that you deny purposely to see the prallel...

If her PV was literaly, explicitly illustrated as the 3 persons of God were at Jesus' baptism, I would see a parallel where currently none exist.

like? No criteria other than faith in that tradition and ultimately to God...

Thanks for offering that answer, but that isn't my answer. The internal tructural integrity is good enough for me.

Oral tradition always came first and then written... The bible did not fell off the sky...

No, but the PV dogma seems to have.

 

[Rick Otto]

Is that in scripture anywhere or is that another ECF fantasy?

 

[Thekla]

Is that in scripture anywhere or is that another ECF fantasy?

got any less incendiary language, there

Didn't say they were one of "the twelve"; it goes to the fruit of their skopos ("calling" or purpose). The teilios of their skopos was of apostleship (you know, apo-stolos, sent out from, messenger)

 

[Uphill Battle]

http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php

read it.

have you read it? good.

now that we got that silly "the trinity isn't in the bible" argument out of the way, let's move on.

 

[Philothei]

The Trinity substantiation is in the verse about Jesus' baptism. The three distinct manifistations are present & don't rely on parsing a tense for clarity.

There is no mentions of "manifestation...": either...nor that it is called Holy Trnity either...

The tense is there and the clarity is knowing how to read it... If you fail to understand it...it is not the author's problem who is Luke and Luke knew perfect Greek...

The context of the situation limits the relevance of the text.


The fact none exist is proof.

No need to. You are wandering off into irrelevancy once again, mam'.

Scripture talks about. Did I mention Jesus' baptism?

Yes, but no reference to word Trinity as far...

I accept it because I see it at Jesus' baptism. Did I forget to say anything about that?



If her PV was literaly, explicitly illustrated as the 3 persons of God were at Jesus' baptism, I would see a parallel where currently none exist.



Thanks for offering that answer, but that isn't my answer. The internal tructural integrity is good enough for me.


No, but the PV dogma seems to have.

[/QUOTE]

Your opinion...The facts are speaking for themselves...you just been circular again

 

[Uphill Battle]

There is no mentions of "manifestation...": either...nor that it is called Holy Trnity either...

and no mention of Orthodox either. Guess you don't exist.

that's a silly game, isn't it!

The tense is there and the clarity is knowing how to read it... If you fail to understand it...it is not the author's problem who is Luke and Luke knew perfect Greek...

and yet we're expected to believe that he knew perfect greek, and echewed perfectly greek words for aramaic undertones. (which would be funny for a gentile born greek, wouldn't you say?)

 

[Kristos]

My goodness, what a low view of prophecy you hold! I expected much better from you. The New Testament references to Old Testament prophecies are typically very direct. Thus it was that when the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah 53 he readily accepted Philip's message of the gospel.

As you are well aware, there are multitudes of fanciful interpretations of scripture. We should not accept any unless they are given interpretation by scripture itself. Sadly, the alleged prophecies that you have cited fall into this category. They are no more valid than believing, as some have done, that Napoleon Bounaparte was the AntiChrist, based on similarities between certain prophetic scriptures and his biography.

Odd that you would bring up the Ethiopian eunuch because I was thinking about it, but then didn't.

Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
Act 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

So, are you assuming the roll of Philip? Or the Ethiopian?

What I have cited is nothing more than the teaching/guide of the Orthodox Church. These prophesies concerning Mary are read in church in the evening before every feast day related to Mary - Nativity, Entrance into the Temple, Annuciation, & Dormition. To disregard it as a fanciful seems rather arrogant. I suppose I'm biased, but I think that Orthodox theology is not fanciful in any way, shape or form, quite the contrary.

 

[Philothei]

http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinity.php

read it.
It brings in the same "eisigesis" as the Fathers....wow...At least I know who copy cat from whom....hehehe... Or shall I call it exegesis?

have you read it? good.

now that we got that silly "the trinity isn't in the bible" argument out of the way, let's move on.

No need I read the fathers... I am glad you read it though. UB.

Still it is not In the Bible.... or you found a new version that the word Trinity is in it?

 

[Thekla]

and yet we're expected to believe that he knew perfect greek, and echewed perfectly greek words for aramaic undertones. (which would be funny for a gentile born greek, wouldn't you say?)

The Hebraic "undertones" were a response to the culture of the region, the use of the LXX (stylistically and terminology). Also, the Greek definition of adelphos is broad (why else would Plato and other Greek authors use descriptives where a narrow application was required?).

 

[Uphill Battle]

you're beeing really silly.

nobody is asking for the exact word in the bible, other than you. ok then, Eucharist isn't in the bible, so it isn't true. Pope (for any Catholic out their) isn't in the bible...

yada yada.

it's a childish and inane arguement. You're trying to play the "well, you're saying the PV isn't there, so the trinity is the same." false.

false, false, false. We are not asking for the exact words. We are not looking for a verse that says "and yea, Mary dos't remain a perpetual virgin." We're asking for ANY substatiation. ANYthing that mentions Mary remained a life long virgin. It can be said in any manner. It doesn't have to be "Perpetual Virgin."

just like we don't have to see the word Trinity, to understand it's in there.

you're line of argumentation on this one has been exposed as silly. are you willing to stop it now?

 

[Philothei]

and yet we're expected to believe that he knew perfect greek, and echewed perfectly greek words for aramaic undertones. (which would be funny for a gentile born greek, wouldn't you say?)

You accept the gospel of Luke do you? or you do not since it was written in Greek by a Greek speaking man.... so what is your point? disputing the gospel now? or the translation into Greek was lame? That would mean that Gospel and the Acts are not valid as true documents.... Do you realize what you imply? Let us toss out the Acts too... as invalid ...Nice going UB

 

[Uphill Battle]

The Hebraic "undertones" were a response to the culture of the region, the use of the LXX (stylistically and terminology). Also, the Greek definition of adelphos is broad (why else would Plato and other Greek authors use descriptives where a narrow application was required?).

that, my dear friend, is reaching.

 

[Philothei]

you're beeing really silly.

indeed I feel like a little kid being reprimented by my school teacher...

nobody is asking for the exact word in the bible, other than you. ok then, Eucharist isn't in the bible, so it isn't true. Pope (for any Catholic out their) isn't in the bible...

yada yada.

it's a childish and inane arguement. You're trying to play the "well, you're saying the PV isn't there, so the trinity is the same." false.

false, false, false. We are not asking for the exact words. We are not looking for a verse that says "and yea, Mary dos't remain a perpetual virgin." We're asking for ANY substatiation. ANYthing that mentions Mary remained a life long virgin. It can be said in any manner. It doesn't have to be "Perpetual Virgin."

just like we don't have to see the word Trinity, to understand it's in there.

you're line of argumentation on this one has been exposed as silly. are you willing to stop it now?

I am not the one running out of arguments...