Speak lovingly of Mary

[jckstraw72]

Rather as Jesus said, we should give honor to anyone who hears the word of God & keeps it

and Scripture tells us that Mary heard the words of Christ and kept them in her heart.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Here's your former position, as stated in # 68, "How ever the Dogma that is being questioned is mentioned by the Church fathers and is in Scripture.

Our friend WarriorAngel posted in # 91, "It's right there in Scripture!Now you seem to be saying that it's NOT in Scripture.

I said we are not Sola Scriptura. [/quote]
You said it is "in Scripture."

WarriorAngel said, "It's right there in Scripture!"

When such was asked for..... well..... the obvious happened.

I disagree with you that the Catholic Denomination uses it's own Tradition AND Scripture.

Here's a classic example of the real rubric of "My Tradition OR Scripture." Because, as you've noted, it's not using Scripture here - just it's own very late Tradition. OR not AND

.

The very same Tradition that brought you the Bible, Brought us the Dormition/Assumption of Mary.

This very thread makes my point...
You've changed your position to stress that these DOGMAS are NOT the result of Scripture AND Tradition but from Tradition alone. You are NOT supporting or using or embracing Scripture AND Tradition, you are supporting, defending, using and embracing the rubric of Scripture OR Tradition.

]So, you admit that this rumor doesn't come from Scripture or Mary or any Apostle or any earliest Catholic Denominational "Fathers." We agree on that.

Nope but you keep on trying though if it pleases you.

Well, you've changed your position to say it is not from Scripture.

You've not noted any Apostle who taught the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary or that Mary Had No Sex Ever.

You've not noted any Catholic Denomination's "Fathers" from before 150 that taught these things.



So, IMHO, you not only do NOT embrace Scripture AND Tradition or Scripture OR Tradition but rather your actual position is: NEITHER Scripture OR Tradition.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sunni - since you trust Jesus []
I think if you had problems with this - that asking Him straight up you will find He will lead you to the answers.

It has worked this way for me.

We...the inhabitants of this valley of tears, hoping and praying for our Lord, are shown many things..
But as often true - we dont get it.

Which is why Paul says we start out with milk, but eventually can eat meat.
So he is saying it is a journey of unfolding revelations and knowledge we build up.

Ignorance [may] be bad... but ignorance is also what our judgement is based upon.
God wont judge us all the same.

For doesnt He say - 'Those who were given much - much will be expected?'

So then we know if one isnt given much, less is expected. Therefore we are judged on what we know.
And His judgement differs vastly from our own. We who cannot read the hearts of others.

As we can see the Gospels accounts are not silent about Mary.
Luke's Gospel tells us so many things in what Mary herself said...
Her Magnifcat is oft over looked by so many.
Saying the Bible is silent.

But look closely at what she said...or even to her.

Starting point would be the Grace that already filled Mary as per the greeting from St Gabriel [the problem is the English translation from the old Greek] And the English is truly absent of the actual greeting. There are no words to describe St Gabriel's words to her. She was more than grace filled - she was already pre saved and pre ordained to be the Holy Mother of God.

Luke 1
46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
51 He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. 54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy: 55 As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Mary was the actual seed.
Not Joseph, altho his geneology is proof that altho in David's line, he came [descended from] the tribe that would not conceive the Messiah. Which is most telling - since God didnt want anyone to think he was the actual father.

I highlighted the above statements from Mary which shows us inequivocably that Mary has already rejoiced in the Savior [past tense - presaved] and she was already exalted [past tense] and all generations shall call her blessed. [future] And her soul magnifies the Lord [at then present]

How does a soul magnify the Lord?

to increase in significance : intensify b: exaggerate <magnifies every minor issue to crisis proportions>

to enlarge in fact or in appearanceintransitive verb: to have the power of causing objects to appear larger than they are.

Her soul - the being from God, magified Christ.
She made Him larger... she increased Him and gave Him to the world.

If you look much closer at the actual greeting from St Gabriel..
And her own words, her importance makes more sense.

How could she, who had graces, be able to say this if it weren't true?

Then we look onwards to Simeon.

Luke 2
34 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted;
35 And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.

Hearts revealed...ponder that.
Didnt i just say the Lord said we cannot read hearts so we cannot judge them?

Yet Simeon who was filled with the Holy Spirit spoke this.
Of course he was revealing the future of Mary...thru God's Spirit.

NOW fast forward a bit in Luke...

Luke 2
43 And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. 44 And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day's journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. 45 And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him.

46 And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. 48 And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business? 50 And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them. 51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. 52 And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace with God and men.

Some translation such as this say He was subjected to them and others say He obeyed.

Either way, God Himself obeyed His Mother and step father.
Another thing to think on.

IF Jesus obeyed Her - how could she be of common stock?
Jesus created her, already saved her, and obeyed her.

Her honor is due, for who here is above God Himself not to to do as He Himself did/does?

What i am saying is we know a lot about Mary...
She was already
exalted
rejoiced in her Savior [already saved]
exalted
and shall always be called blessed.

We know she read hearts.

We know Christ obeyed her.

AND we know thru the greeting that she was above all other creatures [her greeting was very unique]. And she was already saved and her graces were past tense.

And last we know that whatsoever she asks, God will do for her because she asked.

FST FWD to the wedding of Cana.

John 2
1 And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

Mary didnt wait for Him to approve, for she knew He would already do what she asked.

 

[WarriorAngel]

You said it is "in Scripture."

WarriorAngel said, "It's right there in Scripture!"

When such was asked for..... well..... the obvious happened.


You've not noted any Apostle who taught the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary or that Mary Had No Sex Ever.


So, IMHO, you not only do NOT embrace Scripture AND Tradition or Scripture OR Tradition but rather NEITHER Scripture OR Tradition.


.

I already went thru the Immaculate Conception [as per my last post] IF you read it ...
She was pre saved - therefore she was spotless.

As for her perpetual virginity...
I am now going to show you the foreshadowing of God's words to her virginity.

Ezechiel 44
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

The gate is Mary's womb. NO man shall open it, and no man shall pass through it. FOR the Lord God shall enter into it.
Its pretty sufficient to explain the prophecy of Mary.

Unless you think God was really more worried about a gate [material] than the Mother of Him.

THIS was a prophecy CJ. That SHE would remain a perpetual virgin and God is a jealous God and He wont allow any man to go there where He enters. [He entered the world]

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I already went thru the Immaculate Conception [as per my last post] IF you read it ...
She was pre saved - therefore she was spotless.

You gave NOTHING about the unique RCC dogma of Mary being conceived sinless.

Nothing.

Nothing from Scripture.
Nothing from the Apostles.
Nothing from anyone who knew Jesus or Mary or an Apostle.
Nothing from the earliest RCC's "Fathers."

As for her perpetual virginity...

I am now going to show you the foreshadowing of God's words to her virginity.

Ezechiel 44
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

The gate is Mary's womb. NO man shall open it, and no man shall pass through it. FOR the Lord God shall enter into it.
Its pretty sufficient to explain the prophecy of Mary.

There's NOTHING here about Mary, her sexuality, or the frequency of sex between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Nothing.

The OO doesn't teach it - and never has.
The EO doesn't teach this - and never has.
The early church didn't teach this.

No one gave this very odd interpretation in the earliest church - one that entirely evades the context. IMHO, my friend, you could have picked ANY verse in the Bible - any at all - and it would "support" this dogma as well as this one does, most probably better.

God is a jealous God and He wont allow any man to go there where He enters. [He entered the world]

Your Scripture for that?

Since God entered the world, why am I allowed to go there?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Komnenos]

EZK44:2

2Then said the LORD unto me, "This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened and no man shall enter in by it, because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I gave it CJ, you cannot see it.

Its not the fault of the Church that what is there cannot be seen.
Especially as i said, the English translation does not render the actual meaning behind St Gabriel's greeting.

Kecharitomene

The Greek word kecharitomene has fascinated people since ancient times, and for a number of reasons. What does it mean? How do we best translate it into other languages? What might it imply, beyond simple meaning, about Mary? This article will focus primarily on the first two questions: considering the meaning of the Greek word and its translation into English. The third question could not be fully answered without considering the larger scriptural context of the words of Gabriel, traditional Christian understanding and mariology, etc.

So what does kecharitomene mean?
direct address
When Gabriel appears to Mary, the first words he says to her are "Chaire, kecharitomene!" [Caire, kecaritomene!]. Chaire (which means both "rejoice" and "hail") is the salutation, like the word "hello" in "hello, Cathy!" The word that follows, kecharitomene, is the direct address. In the previous example, the name "Cathy" is the direct address. A direct address is usually a name or title (or pronoun taking the place of a name or title) which represents the identity of the person being spoken to. Gabriel identifies Mary with a single term: not the name "Mary," but the word kecharitomene. Here, a common translation problem occurs. Gabriel only uses one word to refer to Mary, but most English translations do not. One particularly bad translation renders kecharitomene as "highly favored daughter." Kecharitomene is extended from one word to three. The direct address in the translation is "daughter," a word which does not appear in the Greek at all (as will be shown below). "Daughter" is then modified with a relevant word. This doesn't really do kecharitomene justice. The same is true of translations which make the direct address "you" or "one" and modify it with adjectives or appositive phrases. .

etc see link.

Um, CJ God wasnt referring to a gate - it was a concealed prophecy to Mary.

NM...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Its not the fault of the [Catholic] Church that what is there cannot be seen.

Think about that, my good and respected friend.....


When Jesus said, "I have other sheep" the LDS says He stated that they were American Natives - you just cannot "see" it because... well.... um..... it's not there, Jesus never said it.

Friend, if it's not there, then it's not there. ANYONE (and I do mean that) can say "it's there - invisibly - and my eyes (exclusively) can "see" invisible words."

Um, CJ God wasnt referring to a gate - it was a conceleaed prophecy to Mary.

Then why did He specifically say, "THIS gate....?"

Why does the Catholic Church insist that on this particular DOGMA, God "concealed" the Truth by misleading words? How does that reveal that this Dogma is taught in Scripture - rather than "concealed" by misleading words or invisible words?




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Komnenos]

I have to go to work, I will be back later. Peace in the Lord,

Komnenos

 

[WarriorAngel]

Also fwiw, i gave the scriptures, and in that i could give them ...is from Tradition.

Whether or not you want to believe it is up to you CJ.

Here is the thing...
You cannot say the Catholic - Eastern Orhtodox - Coptics do not have these things in scriptures [altho all closely relate to the same final outcome even if they hold to the understanding of the final outcome differently] and instead you should openly admit you do not follow them in that way.

You cannot state per fact that the scriptures do not exist because i showed you where they do.

But you can disagree based on your understanding contrary of the Traditional teachings of these scriptures.

See what i mean.
Otherwise saying i cannot proove it with scriptures is utterly wrong, because i just did.

You however; can only assert that you do not think the translation is the same according to how you perceive them.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Think about that, my good and respected friend.....

When Jesus said, "I have other sheep" the LDS says He stated that they were American Natives - you just cannot "see" it because... well.... um..... it's not there, Jesus never said it.

Friend, if it's not there, then it's not there. ANYONE (and I do mean that) can say "it's there - invisibly - and my eyes (exclusively) can "see" invisible words."

John 10 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

IE, the other sheep shall be brought into His Church - ie, the gentiles.

LDS's prophets [John Smith] has been prooven false because as i said this before - the golden scrolls he saw and translated are all false.
Archeology cannot find one thing from any of the tribes or ppls he mentioned.

So science doesnt see it either CJ.
Meantime, archeology can proove the Church's existence.

I love archeology CJ...dont you.

Then why did He specifically say, "THIS gate....?"

Why does the Catholic Church insist that on this particular DOGMA, God "concealed" the Truth by misleading words? How does that reveal that this Dogma is taught in Scripture - rather than "concealed" by misleading words or invisible words?
[/size]
[/size]


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

Why does He say to kill the unblemished lamb and smear the blood over the houses CJ?

Why does He say in OT [manna] and NT to eat the bread from Heaven, CJ?

Why does He say like Jonah He will be gone 3 days..?

Why does He say to the Pharisees that the prophets spoke of Him but they couldnt see it?

Why is the OT so concealed CJ?

Why did the Apostle Peter say we cannot understand the OT and need [an authority] to disclose it?

Why did the Eunich need help from Philip?

Because the OT had to be disguised [so to speak] as well as His parables, so that ALL would be fulfilled.

IF Christ's death and Resurrection and His life were visible and easy to see...who would dare to crucify God otherwise?
Thats why everything was hidden.

And this gate was a direct reference to Mary!

As with all things, if she was visible, then her Son would not have been crucified.

And scriptures were always in 'parable/paradox' form so no one could understand them and let His death come to pass.

Ya see?

It was only after 40 days with the Apostles after the Resurrection did He actually explain it all.

And guess what, the OT is not very often referenced in the NT because the Apostles taught orally what it meant.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I gave the scriptures, and in that i could give them ...is from Tradition. Whether or not you want to believe it is up to you CJ.

My unseparated sister in Christ, the point of discussion here is not what we choose to believe. I'm discussing the point if whether this dogma is in Scripture and earliest Tradition.

You gave no Scripture(s) about any Marian dogma. Obviously.
You gave a view imputed into a text via pure eisegesis - as anyone can do with any text. Apples and oranges, as I'm certain you agree. Yes, we ALL KNOW that this is the view of the Catholic Denomination - that's not the issues before us, but rather is it the teaching of Scripture? Do the Apostles (and those 3 ECF who knew at least one) teach this? ANY view can be imputed INTO any text - as we all know, especially if one is going to argue that God was being misleading by what He wrote or that the teaching is "there" in "invisible words" only self can "see." Are you understanding my point of view here? See, my respected friend, I 100% confident you'd not accept that rubric from me or from a Mormon or JW so I'm 100% confident you don't expect me to do so.


Now, IF you want to change you position and state, "This is an article of faith I choose to embrace - I do not argue that it comes from Scripture AND Tradition, I do not argue that it comes from Scripture OR Tradition - it comes from neither, but I choose to accept it nonetheless." Friend, you'll get points from me for honesty, anyway, LOL.

Here is the thing...
You

cannot say the Catholic - Eastern Orhtodox - Coptics do not have these things in scriptures [altho all closely relate to the same final outcome even if they hold to the understanding of the final outcome differently] and instead you should openly admit you do not follow them in that way.

You cannot state per fact that the scriptures do not exist because i showed you where they do.

But you can disagree based on your understanding contrary of the Traditional teachings of these scriptures.

See what i mean.
Otherwise saying i cannot proove it with scriptures is utterly wrong, because i just did.

You however; can only assert that you do not think the translation is the same according to how you perceive them.

Friend, OBVIOUSLY, you didn't "prove" anything at all - or even reference anything of any relevance whatsoever. Obviously. What you gave is a verse that you imputed with an entirely foreign meaning (quite difficult given the words actually there and the context of them). What you gave is your view IMPUTED into a chosen Scripture. Eisegesis (and entirely baseless at that), not exegesis.

What you gave is a verse written 600 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lady that SPECIFICALLY states, "THIS gate..." not "Mary's womb." Thus, the verse doesn't say ANYTHING about Mary, sex, wombs, Joseph, frequency of sex, etc. Obviously. A view is being IMPUTED INTO the text, not taken from the text. Friend, as you know as well as I do, anyone can do that with anything and any verse. All it signifies is that the view is being imputed into the text. That's it. That's all. It might be a correct view, it might be an errant view, but it's not what the text is saying it's what is being imputed into it. Apples and oranges. (My Rx, spend a few months with a Mormon apologist - a really good one - you'll learn to spot this really quickly, LOL).


Friend, I'm NOT saying ANY of these Marian DOGMA of the Catholic Denomination are wrong (or right). I suppose I am challenging the Catholic Denomination's insistence that they ARE dogmas - the highest level of certainty and importance. If I'm going to be anathematized as a heretic (and TECHNICALLY, I'm not), then something more than "but I really, really think it's true - I do, I do!" might be good. You agree? DOMGA should require more than "but I choose to regard it as true and you as a heretic" - whether that be a Mormon or a Catholic or a JW or a Lutheran, IMHO. I'm sure we disagree.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



(Waiting - not so patiently - for GT to reopen. )

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

John 10 16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

IE, the other sheep shall be brought into His Church - ie, the gentiles.

LDS's prophets [John Smith] has been prooven false because as i said this before - the golden scrolls he saw and translated are all false.

Friend, you entirely missed my point....

The LDS says that the text says that Jesus will embrace the American Natives. They can "see" the "invisible words" Jesus MEANT to say but.... um.... didn't.

Now, let's discuss Ezekiel 44:2. All of us with the ability to read know what the text says, just as we know what John 10:16 says. Now, since you want to embrace that words can be deleted and "invisible" words inserted, that one's view can be imputed INTO a text via eisegesis, then the LDS is simply doing what you are arguing should be done.

IF you are saying the LDS rubric is wrong, then I agree with you and make exactly the same notation when you use the same rubric.

Why is the OT so concealed CJ?

Why did the Apostle Peter say we cannot understand the OT and need [an authority] to disclose it?

Why did the Eunich need help from Philip?

Because the OT had to be disguised [so to speak] as well as His parables, so that ALL would be fulfilled.

IF Christ's death and Resurrection and His life were visible and easy to see...who would dare to crucify God otherwise?
Thats why everything was hidden.

And this gate was a direct reference to Mary!

As with all things, if she was visible, then her Son would not have been crucified.

And scriptures were always in 'parable/paradox' form so no one could understand them and let His death come to pass.

Ya see?

It was only after 40 days with the Apostles after the Resurrection did He actually explain it all.

And guess what, the OT is not very often referenced in the NT because the Apostles taught orally what it meant.

IF the NT reveals it, it's no longer concealed. Jesus referenced the OT over 50 times, just Himself, just in examples recorded in the four Gospels.

Now, I can ask questions. A Mormon can ask questions. Mary Baker Eddy can ask questions. Joel Osment can ask questions. All God's children can ask questions. But that isn't substantiation for anything - certainly not for the 'answers' self gives to the questions that self asks. I'm sure you agree.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[bbbbbbb]

All this discussion about gates and wombs leads me to John 10:9 where Jesus says He is the gate (womb). Using a consistent hermeneutic (for which the RCC is hardly notorious) one might infer that Jesus is a womb and enjoys frequent sex as his flock goes in and out.

I agree with CJ, that WA et. al. should honestly and simply state that what they believe concerning the Marian dogmas of the RCC are just that - dogmas propounded by the RCC for its members and which have no foundation in the Bible, in the lives of the Apostles, nor in recorded history prior to A.D. 150. If it bothers you that these dogmas are foundationless, then you might seriously and prayerfully reconsider your beliefs.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

EZK44:2

2Then said the LORD unto me, "This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened and no man shall enter in by it, because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut.

That must be a favorite verse for the Orthodox as you also used it here

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7260205
Blessed Virgin Mary is our Mother - here's why

Originally Posted by Komnenos I'll just use scripture then.
Ezekiel 44:2 2Then said the LORD unto me, "This gate shall be shut. It shall not be opened and no man shall enter in by it, because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Friend, you entirely missed my point....

The LDS says that the text says that Jesus will embrace the American Natives. They can "see" the "invisible words" Jesus MEANT to say but.... um.... didn't.

I say GIVE THE LAND BACK TO THE INDIANS!!!

Ezekiel 37:9 And He is saying to me, "Prophesy! to the breath. Prophesy! son of 'Adam, and thou say to the breath, 'Thus He says my Lord YHWH: "From Four of Winds, come! the Breath, and breathe/blow in the ones slain, these and they shall live." '

http://www.indians.org/welker/greatspi.htm

"Oh, Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the wind, Whose Breath gives life to all the world. Hear me; I need your strength and wisdom.

O Great Spirit of the North, who gives wings to the waters of the air and rolls the thick snowstorm before Thee,
O Great Spirit of the East, the land of the rising Sun, Who holds in Your right hand the years of our lives
O Great Spirit of the South, whose warm breath of compassion melts the ice that gathers round our hearts,
O Great Spirit of the West, the land of the setting Sun, with Your soaring mountains and free,

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So where we may doubt something, and it is true, we should reflect on the fact we may make an error and that error could could cause others to stumble.

Got your point, my unseparated sister in Christ....

As I'm sure you so regard when speaking to Mormons, Davidians, UFO'er, etc.; I'm sure, then, that you don't raise a note of question lest they MIGHT be correct and/or you MIGHT cause them to 'doubt.' And if you had been in the Garden as the Serpent began to speak to Eve, you would have been quiet lest that snake MIGHT be correct or you MIGHT cause Eve to question him. And I'm also sure you don't question any statement made by any Fundamentalist or 'Evangelical' Protestant in any sense lest he/she MIGHT be correct or you MIGHT cause them to "stumble."

I understand, my friend. I'm not sure I completely agree, but I understand.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And I'm also sure you don't question any statement made by any Fundamentalist or 'Evangelical' Protestant in any sense lest he/she MIGHT be correct or you MIGHT cause them to "stumble."

That is a possibility.

 

[WarriorAngel]

My unseparated sister in Christ, the point of discussion here is not what we choose to believe. I'm discussing the point if whether this dogma is in Scripture and earliest Tradition.

You gave no Scripture(s) about any Marian dogma. Obviously.
You gave a view imputed into a text via pure eisegesis - as anyone can do with any text. Apples and oranges, as I'm certain you agree. Yes, we ALL KNOW that this is the view of the Catholic Denomination - that's not the issues before us, but rather is it the teaching of Scripture? Do the Apostles (and those 3 ECF who knew at least one) teach this? ANY view can be imputed INTO any text - as we all know, especially if one is going to argue that God was being misleading by what He wrote or that the teaching is "there" in "invisible words" only self can "see." Are you understanding my point of view here? See, my respected friend, I 100% confident you'd not accept that rubric from me or from a Mormon or JW so I'm 100% confident you don't expect me to do so.

I understand all too well, CJ.
You, unlike 1500 years of Christians - need it in writing.

But what you dont seem to understand is that oral teaching was never written outright until a case of a heretic.

We know this was the case - as it is the only reason the Apostles ever wrote an Epistle.

You would be very hard pressed to show me where scriptures says that we only to believe the written.
Paul told Timothy to teach what he heard by mouth and by written.

Anything else contradicts scriptures themselves.

Furthermore i already provided the scriptures...that were a prophecy to her.

But you need to show me what it is Christ taught for 40 days after He rose.
Do you have that handy somewhere?
He taught them on the road how the scriptures were fulfilled...
But do we see anywhere in that account all the scriptures He was teaching?
And how they were fulfilled??

You say it must be in writing - clearly defined...but no where in those scriptures does it even suggest that it shall be written out clearly.
In fact the scriptures themselves refute that idea.

Now, IF you want to change you position and state, "This is an article of faith I choose to embrace - I do not argue that it comes from Scripture AND Tradition, I do not argue that it comes from Scripture OR Tradition - it comes from neither, but I choose to accept it nonetheless." Friend, you'll get points from me for honesty, anyway, LOL.

I have the EO - and OO to back me up...so i would lie to say it was my own understanding and argument.

Friend, OBVIOUSLY, you didn't "prove" anything at all - or even reference anything of any relevance whatsoever. Obviously. What you gave is a verse that you imputed with an entirely foreign meaning (quite difficult given the words actually there and the context of them). What you gave is your view IMPUTED into a chosen Scripture. Eisegesis (and entirely baseless at that), not exegesis.

What you gave is a verse written 600 years before the birth of Our Blessed Lady that SPECIFICALLY states, "THIS gate..." not "Mary's womb." Thus, the verse doesn't say ANYTHING about Mary, sex, wombs, Joseph, frequency of sex, etc. Obviously. A view is being IMPUTED INTO the text, not taken from the text. Friend, as you know as well as I do, anyone can do that with anything and any verse. All it signifies is that the view is being imputed into the text. That's it. That's all. It might be a correct view, it might be an errant view, but it's not what the text is saying it's what is being imputed into it. Apples and oranges. (My Rx, spend a few months with a Mormon apologist - a really good one - you'll learn to spot this really quickly, LOL).


Friend, I'm NOT saying ANY of these Marian DOGMA of the Catholic Denomination are wrong (or right). I suppose I am challenging the Catholic Denomination's insistence that they ARE dogmas - the highest level of certainty and importance. If I'm going to be anathematized as a heretic (and TECHNICALLY, I'm not), then something more than "but I really, really think it's true - I do, I do!" might be good. You agree? DOMGA should require more than "but I choose to regard it as true and you as a heretic" - whether that be a Mormon or a Catholic or a JW or a Lutheran, IMHO. I'm sure we disagree.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



(Waiting - not so patiently - for GT to reopen. )

And here is a writing of the early Church father
CHURCH FATHERS: Oration on Simeon and Anna (Methodius)

You are the circumscription, so to speak, of Him who cannot be circumscribed; the root Isaiah 40:1 of the most beautiful flower; the mother of the Creator; the nurse of the Nourisher; the circumference of Him who embraces all things; the upholder of Him Hebrews 1:3 who upholds all things by His word; the gate through which God appears in the flesh; Ezekiel 44:2 the tongs of that cleansing coal; Isaiah 6:6 the bosom in small of that bosom which is all-containing; the fleece of wool, Judges 6:37 the mystery of which cannot be solved; the well of Bethlehem, 2 Samuel 23:17 that reservoir of life which David longed for, out of which the draught of immortality gushed forth; the mercy-seat Exodus 35:17 from which God in human form was made known unto men; the spotless robe of Him who clothes Himself with light as with a garment. You have lent to God, who stands in need of nothing, that flesh which He had not, in order that the Omnipotent might become that which it was his good pleasure to be. What is more splendid than this? What than this is more sublime? He who fills earth and heaven, Jeremiah 23:24 whose are all things, has become in need of you, for you have lent to God that flesh which He had not. You have clad the Mighty One with that beauteous panoply of the body by which it has become possible for Him to be seen by my eyes. And I, in order that I might freely approach to behold Him, have received that by which all the fiery darts of the wicked shall be quenched. Ephesians 6:16 Hail! hail! mother and handmaid of God. Hail! hail! You to whom the great Creditor of all is a debtor. We are all debtors to God, but to you He is Himself indebted.
For He who said, Honour your father and your mother, Exodus 20:12 will have most assuredly, as Himself willing to be proved by such proofs, kept inviolate that grace, and His own decree towards her who ministered to Him that nativity to which He voluntarily stooped, and will have glorified with a divine honour her whom He, as being without a father, even as she was without a husband, Himself has written down as mother. Even so must these things be. For the hymns which we offer to you, O you most holy and admirable habitation of God, are no merely useless and ornamental words. Nor, again, is your spiritual laudation mere secular trifling, or the shoutings of a false flattery, O you who of God art praised; you who to God gavest suck; who by nativity givest unto mortals their beginning of being, but they are of clear and evident truth. But the time would fail us, ages and succeeding generations too, to render unto you your fitting salutation as the mother of the King Eternal, 1 Timothy 1:17 even as somewhere the illustrious prophet says, teaching us how incomprehensible you are. How great is the house of God, and how large is the place of His possession! Great, and has none end, high and unmeasurable. For verily, verily, this prophetic oracle, and most true saying, is concerning your majesty; for you alone hast been thought worthy to share with God the things of God; who hast alone borne in the flesh Him, who of God the Father was the Eternally and Only-Begotten. So do they truly believe who hold fast to the pure faith.



Rufinus: about 307-309 AD he died. So this was written prior to that date. Maybe 280 AD plus.
CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Rufinus)

The words of the Prophets concerning Him, A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son, are known to all, and are cited in the Gospels again and again. The Prophet Ezekiel too had predicted the miraculous manner of that birth, calling Mary figuratively the Gate of the Lord, the gate, namely, through which the Lord entered the world. For he says, The gate which looks towards the East shall be closed, and shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel shall pass through it, and it shall be closed. What could be said with such evident reference to the inviolate preservation of the Virgin's condition? That Gate of Virginity was closed; through it the Lord God of Israel entered; through it He came forth from the Virgin's womb into this world; and the Virgin-state being preserved inviolate, the gate of the Virgin remained closed for ever. Therefore the Holy Ghost is spoken of as the Creator of the Lord's flesh and of His temple.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm

 

[WarriorAngel]

[/color][/size][/b]



And here is a writing of the early Church father
CHURCH FATHERS: Oration on Simeon and Anna (Methodius)

You are the circumscription, so to speak, of Him who cannot be circumscribed; the root Isaiah 40:1 of the most beautiful flower; the mother of the Creator; the nurse of the Nourisher; the circumference of Him who embraces all things; the upholder of Him Hebrews 1:3 who upholds all things by His word; the gate through which God appears in the flesh; Ezekiel 44:2 the tongs of that cleansing coal; Isaiah 6:6 the bosom in small of that bosom which is all-containing; the fleece of wool, Judges 6:37 the mystery of which cannot be solved; the well of Bethlehem, 2 Samuel 23:17 that reservoir of life which David longed for, out of which the draught of immortality gushed forth; the mercy-seat Exodus 35:17 from which God in human form was made known unto men; the spotless robe of Him who clothes Himself with light as with a garment. You have lent to God, who stands in need of nothing, that flesh which He had not, in order that the Omnipotent might become that which it was his good pleasure to be. What is more splendid than this? What than this is more sublime? He who fills earth and heaven, Jeremiah 23:24 whose are all things, has become in need of you, for you have lent to God that flesh which He had not. You have clad the Mighty One with that beauteous panoply of the body by which it has become possible for Him to be seen by my eyes. And I, in order that I might freely approach to behold Him, have received that by which all the fiery darts of the wicked shall be quenched. Ephesians 6:16 Hail! hail! mother and handmaid of God. Hail! hail! You to whom the great Creditor of all is a debtor. We are all debtors to God, but to you He is Himself indebted.
For He who said, Honour your father and your mother, Exodus 20:12 will have most assuredly, as Himself willing to be proved by such proofs, kept inviolate that grace, and His own decree towards her who ministered to Him that nativity to which He voluntarily stooped, and will have glorified with a divine honour her whom He, as being without a father, even as she was without a husband, Himself has written down as mother. Even so must these things be. For the hymns which we offer to you, O you most holy and admirable habitation of God, are no merely useless and ornamental words. Nor, again, is your spiritual laudation mere secular trifling, or the shoutings of a false flattery, O you who of God art praised; you who to God gavest suck; who by nativity givest unto mortals their beginning of being, but they are of clear and evident truth. But the time would fail us, ages and succeeding generations too, to render unto you your fitting salutation as the mother of the King Eternal, 1 Timothy 1:17 even as somewhere the illustrious prophet says, teaching us how incomprehensible you are. How great is the house of God, and how large is the place of His possession! Great, and has none end, high and unmeasurable. For verily, verily, this prophetic oracle, and most true saying, is concerning your majesty; for you alone hast been thought worthy to share with God the things of God; who hast alone borne in the flesh Him, who of God the Father was the Eternally and Only-Begotten. So do they trulybelieve who hold fast to the pure faith.





Rufinus: about 307-309 AD he died. So this was written prior to that date. Maybe 280 AD plus.
CHURCH FATHERS: Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Rufinus)

The words of the Prophets concerning Him, A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son, are known to all, and are cited in the Gospels again and again. The Prophet Ezekiel too had predicted the miraculous manner of that birth, calling Mary figuratively the Gate of the Lord, the gate, namely, through which the Lord entered the world. For he says, The gate which looks towards the East shall be closed, and shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel shall pass through it, and it shall be closed. What could be said with such evident reference to the inviolate preservation of the Virgin's condition? That Gate of Virginity was closed; through it the Lord God of Israel entered; through it He came forth from the Virgin's womb into this world; and the Virgin-state being preserved inviolate, the gate of the Virgin remained closed for ever. Therefore the Holy Ghost is spoken of as the Creator of the Lord's flesh and of His temple.

As i showed here the Tradition [the understanding of scriptures as taught since the beginning] so the CC, EO, AND OO all uphold this.

Which means anything written, understood, or porported as understanding post 1700 AD outside the Church [altho schismed] is basing their translations on not what has been taught since the beginning, but on what they wrest it to mean.