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.
"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."
"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
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."
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
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?
Of course, as you know, I did not. What you did is ignore the word "I" in the text.2. altering 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
.
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.
Yes, of course.We're not limited to the 13 letters that Paul pinned, there are other biblical books as well.
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. 4:17-18Sola Scriptura as praxis need not be exampled to be sound, but it is. Some 50 times by Jesus Himself.
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 !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?
Sola Scriptura is being used as the measure of the teaching of the ever-virginity; the discussion on the matter is waranted.
The word "I" was included in the quote.Of course, as you know, I did not. What you did is ignore the word "I" in the text.
And I did not use a twisted translation in order to support my view.
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 !
The word "I" was included in the quote.
And I did not use a twisted translation in order to support my view.
CJ said: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
shhh.... sex is dirty....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
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...Maturity and respect, that's all
Q
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....")
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 agree with the verse, we should hold to everything PAUL taught.
Now, where did PAUL teach that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN?
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.
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.
you know, it rarely comes up.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 ?
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.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.
I know. You just dropped in to complain.And BTW, I have had little to no input in this thread.
you know, it rarely comes up.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 ?
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.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.
I know. You just dropped in to complain.And BTW, I have had little to no input in this thread.
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?