Speak lovingly of Mary

[Thekla]

Paul didn't teach truth

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you have remembered me in all things; and even as I delivered to you, ye are holding fast the traditions (paradosis)."
1 Cor. 11:2

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you have remembered me in all things; and even as I delivered to you, ye are holding fast the traditions (paradosis)."
1 Cor. 11:2

1 Corinthians 11:2, "I priase you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you."

You deleted that part of the verse that states, "....AS I (PAUL) PASSED THEM ON TO YOU." Not, ".... as the Greek Orthodox Church" or "....as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" or "....The Roman Catholic Church."




Back to the issue of why it is distinctively LOVING toward Our Blessed Lady to insist to the level of DOGMA that she never once ever had sex and what substantiation is given for this that the RCC exists must exist or the speading of a report is distinctively a "sin?"




.

 

[Thekla]

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you have remembered me in all things; and even as I delivered to you, ye are holding fast the traditions (paradosis)."
1 Cor. 11:2
​

1 Corinthians 11:2, "I priase you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you."

You deleted that part of the verse that states, "....AS I (PAUL) PASSED THEM ON TO YOU." Not, ".... as the Greek Orthodox Church" or "....as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" or "....The Roman Catholic Church."

I guess you missed it when you were reading; I've bolded it this time to make it more easily apparent.

Your translation seems to have rendered paradosis (traditions) as didaskalias (teachings).

Is it the position of Sola Scriptura that we can rewrite the Bible at will ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What you conveniently ignore is that these teachings are as PAUL passed on.
It says NOTHING about you, Joseph Smith, Joseph Ratzinger, the RCC, the Greek Orthodox Church, Martin Luther, Joel Osment, Mary Baker Eddy or me.

Now, how does this verse affirm that it is distinctively LOVING toward one to make it a matter of highest importance how often they have had sex (or not) with their spouse and whether her hymen is still in place or not? Would you regard it as distinctively LOVING if it was made a matter of highest importance for all to know how often you and your spouse have sex - all 6.5 billion on the planet must know (of all ages) and to deny such is to be a heretic and thus salvation is in question? Is THAT distinctively LOVING toward you? And how does that verse give the substantiation that the Catholic Church (NOT ME!) insist MUST exist before a story can be shared or else it is a SIN to spread it?




.

 

[Thekla]

What you conveniently ignore is that these teachings are as PAUL passed on.
It says NOTHING about you, Joseph Smith, Joseph Ratzinger, the RCC, the Greek Orthodox Church, Martin Luther, Joel Osment, Mary Baker Eddy or me.

Can you show me in the Bible where Paul passed on:
1. Sola Scriptura
2. altering the text

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Can you show me in the Bible where Paul passed on:
1. Sola Scriptura

It's not dogma (or even doctrine), it's praxis.
We're not limited to the 13 letters that Paul pinned, there are other biblical books as well.
Sola Scriptura as praxis need not be exampled to be sound, but it is. Some 50 times by Jesus Himself.
If you want to talk about Sola Scriptura, we are not permitted to so so in this forum. I have often given you a link to the discussion in the appropriate forum but you have ignored that.
Is there a reason why you want to divert from this DOGMA about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born?

2. altering the text

Of course, as you know, I did not. What you did is ignore the word "I" in the text.

The verse you quotes says nothing about why the frequency of sex among spouses is an issue of highest importance and telling all the world's 6.5 billion people about such is distinctively LOVING toward them (the issue of this thread).



Back to the issue of this thread: Is this issue of the frequency of sex among Mary and Joseph (a matter the RCC regards as dogma of highest importance) distinctively LOVING toward her? And since the RCC (NOT ME!) insists that a story must be substantiated before it can be spread about (or is is distinctively as "SIN" - again, the RCC's term, not mine), then in order to be LOVING and not SIN, doesn't it have to be substantiated, to the appropriate level (here as dogma) and in ways the RCC itself regards as valid from others?





Thank you.

Pax

- Josiah



.

 

[Thekla]

It's not dogma (or even doctrine), it's praxis.

1. The act of passing on/traditioning (paradosis) IS a praxis, and it is a Biblical praxis. Tradition "stands up" to your extra-Biblical praxis.

2. If Sola Scriptura is neither dogma or doctrine, then it is superfluous in the sense that it can be replaced by any other praxis as an approach.

3. You referred to Sola Scriptura as an "epistomological praxis", yet you failed to describe which "school" of epistomology it utilizes:1. that which views knowledge as the result of an "intellectual uncovering", 2. that which views knowledge as experientally discovered, 3. that which views knowledge as the result of both, but limited by the process of mind innate to the creature, or 4. another.

We're not limited to the 13 letters that Paul pinned, there are other biblical books as well.

Yes, of course.

Sola Scriptura as praxis need not be exampled to be sound, but it is. Some 50 times by Jesus Himself.

It is used, but it is not the sole praxis exampled. Christ did not support every teaching using scripture. Christ's teaching was not soley conveyed by word, but also in what He did. This is amplified by Paul: " Therefore, I beseech you, keep on becoming imitators of me. On this account I sent to you Timothy, who is my child, beloved and faithful in the Lord, who shall remind you of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church." I Cor. 4:17-18

If you want to talk about Sola Scriptura, we are not permitted to so so in this forum. I have often given you a link to the discussion in the appropriate forum but you have ignored that.
Is there a reason why you want to divert from this DOGMA about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born?

You attacked the teaching of the ever-virginity based on the "absence" of its "explicit teaching" in the Bible; your requirement that all valid teachings are contained in the Bible is based on your extra-Biblical praxis of Sola Scriptura. Your standard is extra-Biblical !

Sola Scriptura is being used as the measure of the teaching of the ever-virginity; the discussion on the matter is waranted.

Of course, as you know, I did not. What you did is ignore the word "I" in the text.

The word "I" was included in the quote.
And I did not use a twisted translation in order to support my view.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You attacked the teaching of the ever-virginity based on the "absence" of its "explicit teaching" in the Bible

You must not be reading what I post.

I have NEVER REMOTELY EVEN SUGGESTED that the DOGMA in the RCC is wrong. And I certainly never attacked it.




The two issues I've raised in two or three threads on this, but which are ignored, are as follows:


1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma? WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my point.


2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true (millions who say that bigfoot exists believe that what they are saying is true). The isssue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.


So far, what I've gotten is nothing in response to the first point, and a lot of "but those spreading it say it's true" for the second (such almost always being the case for those spreading rumors - rarely does one preface a rumor by saying: "What I'm about to say is false....")

your requirement that all valid teachings are contained in the Bible is based on your extra-Biblical praxis of Sola Scriptura. Your standard is extra-Biblical !

You haven't been reading my posts....

What I've stressed - many times - is that I'll accept ANY authority that the RCC will also accept from others. But so far (for those that have read my posts on this), we've only been able to come up with two things that the RCC accepts as valid outside of itself: Scripture and history. And I've specifically stated I will accept substantiation from either or both of those. But nothing has been offered from Scripture (apart from nothing there specifically CONTRADICTS the teaching and/or that the RCC's INTERPRETATION of some verses supports the self-same's interpretation - but obviously the text says no such thing). From history, we have nothing. From the 5th century on, we clearly see that the story existed and that those who were spreading it thought it true - but of course, that's not substantiation. I suspect I could quote from thousands of people from 1950 on who believe that aliens from outer space are visiting our planet - but you'd agree that's not substantiation that they are.


Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).

The word "I" was included in the quote.
And I did not use a twisted translation in order to support my view.

I agree with the verse, we should hold to everything PAUL taught.
Now, where did PAUL teach that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN?






.

 

[Qoheleth]

Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES

This constant obsession with particular details and having to broadcast them is rather unneeded and troublesome at the least.

Would it be ok to ask that you refrain (one Christian brother to another) from a few explicit details (which have no bearing on the topic) about the Blessed Mother or your mother or anyone's mother?



Q

 

[Uphill Battle]

This constant obsession with particular details and having to broadcast them is rather unneeded and troublesome at the least.

Would it be ok to ask that you refrain (one Christian brother to another) from a few explicit details (which have no bearing on the topic) about the Blessed Mother or your mother or anyone's mother?



Q

shhh.... sex is dirty....

 

[Qoheleth]

shhh.... sex is dirty....

Maturity and respect, that's all




Q

 

[Uphill Battle]

Maturity and respect, that's all




Q

how so? you get your knickers in a knot with the fact that someone might think that Mary has sex with her husband during her lifetime, you consider it disrespectful to the extreme...

yet you have no compunction about making the statement that she never had sex. IOW, you make consistant references to her sex life (or lack therof) yet are pointing fingers for the EXACT same thing.

that's rather ironic.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

how so? you get your knickers in a knot with the fact that someone might think that Mary has sex with her husband during her lifetime, you consider it disrespectful to the extreme...

 

[Thekla]

You must not be reading what I post.

I have NEVER REMOTELY EVEN SUGGESTED that the DOGMA in the RCC is wrong. And I certainly never attacked it.

So what is the purpose of repeatedly and virulently challenging the matter - to the point of renaming the RCC dogma (and the EO teaching) in degraded terminology - since aprox. Spring ? If you do not find the RCC dogma (and the EO teaching) questionable, why do you refer to it as a "rumor" and conclude that its verbal repetition is a sin ?

The two issues I've raised in two or three threads on this, but which are ignored, are as follows:


1) WHY is THIS issue SO important so as to be dogma?

This has been described ,but has not met with your" traditioned interpretive standard", nor with your "epistimological praxis" ie the extra-Biblical tradition of "Sola Scriptura".

WHY is it an issue of highest importance that all the world's 6.5 billion of all ages knows exactly how often Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) and to the point of this thread, WHY is the spreading of this information distinctively LOVING toward her (the point of this thread) and a matter of such importance that is is DOGMA that must be believed or one is a heretic and their salvation in question? WHY is the frequency of loving, mutual, shared, marital intimacies SO critically important to the very highest possible level of all knowledge and belief? It is the sole subject of the dogma, and it is dogma in the RCC. Now, as I've posted, I'd be willing to chuck this all up to a severe conflict in values if all the Catholics here were posting how often they have sex with their spouse and INSISTING (to the level of dogma) that is it critically important that all the world know this information, that it is distinctively LOVING to them for this information to be dogmatically communicated to all the world's people, and that if one denies this - they are a heretic and their salvation is questionable. But (and this seems relevant to me), not only have none done so but I think there MIGHT even be an unstated slight offense that the subject would even be brought up (at all - much less as dogma, much less as a matter ALL MUST know and believe or they are heretics). IF (and I doubt the this condition is the case), IF they are offended by the very thought of me sharing with the whole world how often they have sex (or not), THEN they would at least BEGIN to understand my point.

I do not understand why you insist on owning terminology used to discuss this matter.

2) Not me, but the CATHOLIC CHURCH insists that it is a SIN (the RCC's term, not mine) to spread a report or story which is not substantiated. The issue is NOT if those spreading the story think it's true (millions who say that bigfoot exists believe that what they are saying is true). The isssue is NOT if lots believe the story or have for a long time. The issue, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) is substantiation. If it's not substantiated, it's SIN to speak of it. If it's sin toward the person, is it also LOVING toward them? (the issue of this thread). Now, we all know that all those spreading this report about Mary and Joseph never having had sex is believed by those spreading it - but that's not the issue. We all know that many (if not virtually all) Christians from the 5th century until fairly recently believed the thing true - but that's not the issue. ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (NOT ME!) the issue is singular: it's a SIN (and thus not loving) unless it is SUBSTANTIATED. Thus, I've raised the issue of substantiation. To the level of dogma. Of a nature the RCC itself accepts as valid from others.

1. if the question of whether or not one has read the posts is of concern (your first statement above), might I ask why you haven't caught my repeated statement that I am not RC ?
2. I have composed each of my posts in response to you individually; yet you have, over the months, copied and restated the same statements with minor (and often no) alteration. IE, your posts tend to be non-responsive. Your refusal to engage in an actual dialogue is disapointing, and abrogrates the terms of not only dialogue, but "fair play".

So far, what I've gotten is nothing in response to the first point, and a lot of "but those spreading it say it's true" for the second (such almost always being the case for those spreading rumors - rarely does one preface a rumor by saying: "What I'm about to say is false....")

Absent actual, requested, verification on your part, you accept the NT writings based on rumor, and promulgate the same rumor by repeatedly appealing to writings which cannot be proven to be not spurious. This hardly lends credibility to your position OR your "concerns".

You haven't been reading my posts....

What I've stressed - many times - is that I'll accept ANY authority that the RCC will also accept from others. But so far (for those that have read my posts on this), we've only been able to come up with two things that the RCC accepts as valid outside of itself: Scripture and history. And I've specifically stated I will accept substantiation from either or both of those. But nothing has been offered from Scripture (apart from nothing there specifically CONTRADICTS the teaching and/or that the RCC's INTERPRETATION of some verses supports the self-same's interpretation - but obviously the text says no such thing). From history, we have nothing. From the 5th century on, we clearly see that the story existed and that those who were spreading it thought it true - but of course, that's not substantiation. I suspect I could quote from thousands of people from 1950 on who believe that aliens from outer space are visiting our planet - but you'd agree that's not substantiation that they are.


Now, as I've posted, IF we were discussing if alchemy's central point of transubstantiation should be regarded as dogma or if we were discussing whether Mary had brown or black hair or if we were discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin - I suppose I wouldn't be TOO concerned. But we're talking about the sex life of my Mother. The entirely moot, intensively private, extremely personal, intimacies of my Mother - Our Blessed Lady. I love, adore, revere and in a sense worship Her. I love Her far more than my own mother or sister here. Now, if after my parents have died, you started a website and insisted on telling all the world's population (including kids) that my mother had sex 1.0 times per week on average and always in the "missionary position" - I'd have EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES (only to a much, much less degree because I don't love my mother as much as I love Mary). I'd want to know WHY you are spreading this about my mother, WHY you regard THIS as a matter of highest importance and to deny such is to be a heretic and salvation is questionable, why THIS issue? AND I'd want to know how do you know this? I lived at home for 16 years and I don't know how often my parents have sex or how they do (and, to address the first issue, I honestly don't regard it as many of our business - much less DOGMA).

I have read your posts; you tend to dismiss responses as inadequate and repeat your position with little variation.

I agree with the verse, we should hold to everything PAUL taught.
Now, where did PAUL teach that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN?

The epistles contain teachings, but are largely FOLLOW-UP TO teachings. Please provide the full description of the breadth and content of the teachings Paul made verbally to the particular churches addressed in the epistles, as well as those churches for which no epistles survive. Additionally, as previously described, teaching is not only a matter of oral statements, but includes what Paul calls "way". Please describe the character, content and actions that are Paul's "way". Also, Paul was quite clear (though unfortunately this has been deliberately obscured in the translation you cited) that TRADITION was important. Please provide description of the full content and breadth of the TRADITION Paul was referring to.








.[/QUOTE]

 

[Thekla]

how so? you get your knickers in a knot with the fact that someone might think that Mary has sex with her husband during her lifetime, you consider it disrespectful to the extreme...

yet you have no compunction about making the statement that she never had sex. IOW, you make consistant references to her sex life (or lack therof) yet are pointing fingers for the EXACT same thing.

that's rather ironic.

Of course, if its all the same thing, you wouldn't mind sharing with us the terminology you use when referring to those of a chaste condition such as: Elias, John the Baptist, Christ.

So, what terminology DO you use for their state of chastity ?

 

[Qoheleth]

how so? you get your knickers in a knot with the fact that someone might think that Mary has sex with her husband during her lifetime, you consider it disrespectful to the extreme...

yet you have no compunction about making the statement that she never had sex. IOW, you make consistant references to her sex life (or lack therof) yet are pointing fingers for the EXACT same thing.

that's rather ironic.

There is a difference between stating the fact or doctrine and adding unneeded or useless even detailed crass information to the topic for no edifying purpose.


And BTW, I have had little to no input in this thread.




Q

 

[Uphill Battle]

Of course, if its all the same thing, you wouldn't mind sharing with us the terminology you use when referring to those of a chaste condition such as: Elias, John the Baptist, Christ.

So, what terminology DO you use for their state of chastity ?

you know, it rarely comes up.

if someone asked, I'd say "they were virgins, they never had sex." I don't see how that is crass or rude. It's the kneejerk reaction to someone suggesting that Mary might have, that makes you upset, not the terminology. Be honest. You comment on whether or not Mary had sex, every time you call there the ever virgin. You are in effect, saying "Mary didn't ever have sex." every time you give her that title, every time you laud her, you're saying "Mary, who never had sex."

There is a difference between stating the fact or doctrine and adding unneeded or useless even detailed crass information to the topic for no edifying purpose.

it points out the dramatic inconsistancy. How is it that you get so upset about someone suggesting that Mary may ahve had sex, once, fifteen times, one thousand, whatever... but absolutely NO problem to declare, and proudly so, that she never did at all.

that's a HUGE double standard you've got going on there.

be honest, this is more about us who don't believe that Mary remained an ever virgin. Or, who don't care if she did or didn't. you're so aghast that someone would "besmirch" the honour of Mary by suggesting the mere possibility that Mary may have slept with her husband.

every time I see this complaint, It hilights the "sex is dirty dirty dirty" mindset of the apostolic churches. that someone could somehow be more holy by being a constant virgin, even while married.

foolishness.

And BTW, I have had little to no input in this thread.

I know. You just dropped in to complain.

 

[Uphill Battle]

duplicate

 

[Uphill Battle]

Of course, if its all the same thing, you wouldn't mind sharing with us the terminology you use when referring to those of a chaste condition such as: Elias, John the Baptist, Christ.

So, what terminology DO you use for their state of chastity ?

you know, it rarely comes up.

if someone asked, I'd say "they were virgins, they never had sex." I don't see how that is crass or rude. It's the kneejerk reaction to someone suggesting that Mary might have, that makes you upset, not the terminology. Be honest. You comment on whether or not Mary had sex, every time you call there the ever virgin. You are in effect, saying "Mary didn't ever have sex." every time you give her that title, every time you laud her, you're saying "Mary, who never had sex."

There is a difference between stating the fact or doctrine and adding unneeded or useless even detailed crass information to the topic for no edifying purpose.

it points out the dramatic inconsistancy. How is it that you get so upset about someone suggesting that Mary may ahve had sex, once, fifteen times, one thousand, whatever... but absolutely NO problem to declare, and proudly so, that she never did at all.

that's a HUGE double standard you've got going on there.

be honest, this is more about us who don't believe that Mary remained an ever virgin. Or, who don't care if she did or didn't. you're so aghast that someone would "besmirch" the honour of Mary by suggesting the mere possibility that Mary may have slept with her husband.

every time I see this complaint, It hilights the "sex is dirty dirty dirty" mindset of the apostolic churches. that someone could somehow be more holy by being a constant virgin, even while married.

foolishness.

And BTW, I have had little to no input in this thread.

I know. You just dropped in to complain.

 

[Uphill Battle]

duplicate