M
MamaZ
Guest
Jesus wouldn't be giving false witness. tee hee For He is truth. It would be the men falsly accusing if they did. Obviously it was not against Marys will..
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jesus wouldn't be giving false witness. tee hee For He is truth. It would be the men falsly accusing if they did. Obviously it was not against Marys will..yes, MamaZ, I understand that; Christ did not care to serve society or "traditions of men".
But show me where He ever imperiled someone with the society against their will.
And show me where He ever gave false witness about someone.
Of course we must know the scriptures -- that is why it is important to read the Luke passages we mentioned, and all passages, carefully.
Jesus wouldn't be giving false witness. tee hee For He is truth. It would be the men falsly accusing if they did. Obviously it was not against Marys will..All those who followed Christ were imperiled.. Society did not rejoice even for Christ..Did He care what men had to say about Him? What did He tell all of His followers.. Fear not what man can do to you... We also read that the fear of men bringeth a snare.. Do you really believe that Mary the mother of Jesus would care what men thought of her? I doubt she would.
You have yet to show that when Jesus gave Mary to the care of John how He accused anyone of anything? All those who were associated with Christ were in peril..My point is not about Christ "caring what people thought of Him"
When did I ever say that ?
I asked:
When did Jesus ever bear false witness ?
When did He ever imperil someone with society against their will ?
Its not about caring what others thought; its about caring for those you love and not bearing false witness.
you only got this out of a writing that has not even been cannonized or can be authenticated as truth.Mamaz the whole community was praying to Mary calling her EVER VIRGIN even the so called son of her James.... That proves both points that he was not her son and that believers of the first century were calling her EV....did you read the doc posted by Lionroar and me?
you only got this out of a writing that has not even been cannonized or can be authenticated as truth.We do not see any of this written in the scripture. James was not even a believer until after Christs ressurection.
according to mens tradtion maybe.. But here is a truth for you to set your mindheart and spirit around..Mamaz He said render to the Ceasar that is what of the Ceasar testifies he respected authority... He did not went against the "customs of men" or we should all "wipe out " all our customs... today....We were not told to do that...He talked about the "spiritual" law the way Jews excercised it... that He did not agree....The fact that the law in Judaism "respected" women and gave them "honor" as it was honorable to take care of one's mother is not a "bad law" that Christ would have argued about...He did not "admolish" the laws... He fulfilled the law so your argument is moot. Christ would NEVER say something against a law that he was agreeable. And taking care of one's mother as an obligation to the son... he followed to the tee as he said to John "here is your mother" he assigned another to the "job"of protecting his mother...thus he followed the law. For the semitic people such a law was not even a matter of questioning it. It was like a necessity. Not to take care of elder people was instant "dishonoring" your name and thus disonoring the person.. I know in Greek cuture is that up to this day... Taking care of the elderly parents is in the commandments that falls under "honor your father and mother" ...you really believe that Christ would fail to keep his own commandment??? But then again some of you do not believe the commandments....or do you?
So what? This document goes back to the 1st century and you are asking about its validity? Yes it has been around as long as the Bible...since people worshiped long before the Bible came around... so it predates it.Cannonization should not be a problem for you since you accept the cannonization of the bible that was also done by the ECF ...thus why this document is of no value? It was cannonized as a liturgy from the fathers just like the Bible... no difference there...
Why would the fact that he was not a believer would stop him from be among the seventy? no reason. And yet you say he was not a Christian before the ressurection...and where was he if he was not persecuted then? Why was missing from the crucifixion scene? Now you contradict yourself...
FYI, this teaching concerning Ezekiel dates at least from St Jerome, 4th century.
She is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel,always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies; and through her the Sun of Righteousness,our high priest after the order of Melchizedek,goes in and out.
Oh you are a hoot.. It was not even part of the scripture nor accepted as such by the early fathers.. Been through this many times already. It is not what man says scripture is. It is God.. The Holy Spirit would bear witness if this were truth. For He alone is our teacher.. For when we have the Spirit of truth in us He does discern for us error and untruth.. This is where having a man as head comes into error. For we have one vicar of Christ and that is the Holy Spirit.
You have yet to show that when Jesus gave Mary to the care of John how He accused anyone of anything? All those who were associated with Christ were in peril..Even Saul now known as Paul persecuted the Christians.. Why would Mary be any different than any of them being persecutied by the Jews and Their traditions? Jesus told us that if we follow after Him that the world would hate us. Do you not believe His words?
Oh you are a hoot.. It was not even part of the scripture nor accepted as such by the early fathers.. Been through this many times already. It is not what man says scripture is. It is God.. The Holy Spirit would bear witness if this were truth. For He alone is our teacher.. For when we have the Spirit of truth in us He does discern for us error and untruth.. This is where having a man as head comes into error. For we have one vicar of Christ and that is the Holy Spirit.
That is not quite accurate. Celibacy of the clergy is defined as being strictly unmarried.
http://www.kofc.org/publications/ci...subSecNum=2&headernum=3&ParNum=2349&ParType=a
he various forms of chastity
2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ," 135 the model for all chastity. All Christ's faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity. 2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single." 136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:
There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others.... This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church. 1372350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.
Peace
it sure did. now saying that the meaning of Ezekiel 44:22 is that of Mary, is not proven to exist in the 1st century.1) Ezekiel 44:22 - certainly existed in the 1st century
I notice you post the 60AD date. This is not a proven fact, it is the viewpoint of one faction. Others think it's as late as the 4th century. (in fact, the majority.) the earliest manuscript of it is 9th century.2) Divine Liturgy of St James the Brother of the Lord. ca 60AD
among other changes to it, yes.note: holy God-mother was added after the council of Chalcedon.
where does it say ever virgin? this hilights the "sex is impure" mindset yet again.3) St Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians - already cited. Also repeated in his epistle to the Philippians & his epistle to St John the apostle:
"But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity"
it's established already, that Mary was a Virgin when Christ was concieved. This passage is NOT adding any evidence to the matter. It's describing what we all already hold true.4) Iraneus, Against Heresies, bookIII
so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], andformer ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty.
being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself
and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man,
the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the
back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put
asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen;3750 so that the
Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae (literally book of the birth of Saint Mary) is a text concerning the events surrounding the birth of Mary, mother of Jesus. It essentially originates as part of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and was treated as an independent work around the ninth century. Ninth century. Rejected.5) Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The blessed and glorious ever-virgin Mary, sprung from the royal stock and family of David,named Joachim, and her mother Anna
born in the city of Nazareth, was brought up at Jerusalem in the temple of the Lord. Her father was
Pseudopigraphical. not to be trusted. If they lied about who wrote it, it makes it rather suspect. (at least to those who don't just believe anything that confirms what they want to believe.)6) Protoevangelium of James - Ch 9v3, Ch 13 v3, ch 15 & ch 20
If you call 5th century "early" alright then.7) The history of Joseph the Carpenter. Early Coptic. This is after Joseph has died, and mary is still called virgin
Now his body was lying prostrate and bloodless; wherefore I reached forth my hand, andput right his eyes and shut his mouth, and said to the virgin Mary:
The Account of St. John the Theologian[1] of the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God.8) The book of John concerning the falling asleep of Mary. Pre-4th Century
As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary,
Attributed to Joseph of Arimathea, but a medieval Latin version of a fourth- century Greek work.9) The Passing of Mary:
Verily, He that was brought forth by thee is the true God, O
mother of God, ever-virgin Mary.
the rhetorical turn employed by Christ in the use of "adelphos" narrows its future (towards the spiritual, post-resurrection, as attested in the epistles) use, not its use contemporary to the event from which its is drawn; it is prospective, not retrospectively narrow.
If you will pardon my play on words, we in the Gentile church have a strong perspective to take a prospective view of this passage. As you are probably aware, there has been scholarly debate as to whether this, and other passages, are prospective or merely addressed to the immediate audience. Given the fact that Christ uses the present tense in stating that all who hear and do the will of God are His mother, brothers, and sisters, rather than will be His mother, brothers, and sisters, can be taken to imply an immediate context. However, there is no doubt that it can, and should, be applied to all who hear and do the will of God regardless of time, both retrospectively and prospectively. Thus, Abraham, the friend of God, or David, the man after God's own heart, could be called brothers of Christ.
However, that does not negate the immediate context of the statement. As with many things, Christ takes an immediate situation (the presence of His mothers, brothers, and sisters) and takes their relationship to Him to show the closeness of relationship believers have to Him,
As for the OT sense of relationship, please excuse me for disagreeing. The relationship with God experienced by Adam, Moses and others was deeply personal. The Law, imo, was formative, developmental in skopos, and relational - it "fenced off" the Jews as the people of A God (as opposed to gods), and served as an instructive and developmental tool (much as happens in the parent child relationship). As Paul notes (as in our previous discussion on the matter), the Law is the tutor, not the teacher.
While I agree entirely with you concerning these relationships, there was a distance between God, the holy One, and his people, Israel. Without a priest interceding for them they could not approach God. The prayers of the people could not be offered and accepted before God without a sacrifice made by the priest. This is in stark contrast to the relationship of the Christian to God, as shown in the book of the Hebrews. Today each Christian has boldness of access through Christ into the presence of God and is accorded a deeply personal, intimate relationship with Him.
The tutor served its purpose, but now, in Christ, we are no longer under the tutor but are heirs with Christ.
Note also that in the OT, the Law created the "suyenis" of God (tribe, kin, etc), a meaning included in the broad definition of adelphos. "And they said, believe (trust) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31 Abraham also had a deeply personal relationship with God; it was through his pleas with God that Lot (his adelphos/nephew LXX) was spared from the destruction. In the NT (Acts, above) we see the notion of oikos/suyenis/adelphos maintained; in Christ, we have no discreet relationships (mother,and all meanings of adelphos), but all are offered sonship in Christ - spiritually ALL relationships are collapsed into one term: SONSHIP through adoption.
I agree again here. The metaphor of mother, brothers, and sisters has its limits and there are, indeed, no discreet divisions of relationship with God, although we are called to differing relationships with each other in the Church - older women to be viewed as mothers, older men as fathers, contemporaries as brothers and sisters. However, Christ gave the metaphor to us and, as such, it is valid as long as it not overly extended or misapplied.
And the mystery that Paul teaches, is that the oikos/suyennis is now extended to ALL the ethnoi/nations, not just the Jews.
The scandal of "Our Father" is both that 'our' extends beyond the Jews, and that the Father is not 'mine' (hence particularized relational terms like mother collapse in the face of sonship through Christ realized in the oikos of His body).
At that point in His ministry, Jesus had not given any indication to His disciples or to anyone else that the offer of oikos/suyennis would be extended to all the nations, not just the Jews. Thus, the disciples were not concerned that our Father would include non-Jews, but that one could address God is such an intimate fashion. This was in radical contrast to the prayers of the day.
In short, in the passage under discussion Christ turns all relationships (broad adelphos, mother, etc) into sonship by adoption through Himself.
As it is said, God has no grandchildren, just children.
This, of course, merely means that Jerome was just as capable of eisegesis as any other theologian. Eisegesis seems to afflict most theologians from time to time, so he is in good company. However, my point still stands that this is an eisegetical interpretation, not an exegetical interpretation
I notice you post the 60AD date. This is not a proven fact, it is the viewpoint of one faction. Others think it's as late as the 4th century. (in fact, the majority.) the earliest manuscript of it is 9th century.
where does it say ever virgin? this hilights the "sex is impure" mindset yet again
Pseudopigraphical. not to be trusted. If they lied about who wrote it, it makes it rather suspect. (at least to those who don't just believe anything that confirms what they want to believe.)
spurious documents
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?